[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 5]
[Issue]
[Pages 5963-6050]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




[[Page 5963]]

                           VOLUME 163--PART 5


                    SENATE--Wednesday, April 26, 2017



  The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the President 
pro tempore (Mr. Hatch).

                          ____________________




                                 PRAYER

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Eternal Lord, the fountain of wisdom, thank You for Your mighty love. 
Give our lawmakers the will and strength they need to meet the 
challenges of these times. May they bend their ear to Your Spirit's 
voice and follow Your leading. Lord, activate their conscience as You 
motivate them to live with honor. Keep them vigilant to look for 
redemptive possibilities in each of life's seasons, finding wisdom in 
Your precepts. May they hear the murmur of Your truth so they will not 
deviate from Your path.
  Father of life, fill the precious hours of this day with Your 
presence.
  We pray in Your majestic Name. Amen.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The President pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________




                   RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Paul). The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________




                              NORTH KOREA

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, North Korea's determined effort to 
field a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile threatens the 
United States and our allies. By all appearances, Kim Jong Un has 
broken from a predictable cycle of escalation demonstrated by previous 
leaders by which the regime takes a provocative action, draws the 
United States into a negotiation, and extracts concessions. Instead, 
Kim appears willing to risk the disapproval of the U.N. and our 
regional allies by undertaking a breakneck testing program.
  The President has made clear that a North Korea that is armed with a 
nuclear-armed missile--a capability they have yet to test--is 
unacceptable to us and threatens our vital national security interest. 
Thus, in order to allow the Senate to better understand this threat, I 
asked the administration to brief all Senators on the issue, and the 
President graciously offered to hold the meeting down at the White 
House. I encourage all of our colleagues to attend this afternoon's 
meeting on North Korea down at the White House.

                          ____________________




                     NOMINATION OF ALEXANDER ACOSTA

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on another matter, I am pleased that 
the Senate voted yesterday to confirm Rod Rosenstein to serve as Deputy 
Attorney General, despite the unnecessary delay, and I look forward to 
advancing another nominee today.
  For the past 8 years, burdensome regulations put forth by the Obama 
administration have held back our economy and taken a toll on too many 
hard-working Americans. Fortunately, we now have an administration that 
has already proven its commitment to easing the regulatory burden on 
our economy and advancing policies that actually promote economic 
growth and job creation.
  The Department of Labor nominee before us today, Alexander Acosta, 
shares that commitment, and he has just the right experience to address 
these issues. He was previously confirmed to three positions by voice 
votes here in the Senate, meaning not a single Senator of either party 
recorded a vote in opposition, so it is no surprise that he has earned 
a host of bipartisan support for his current nomination as well. We 
should confirm him without delay. The sooner we do, the sooner he can 
advance labor policies that put American workers, businesses, and our 
economy first.

                          ____________________




                        GOVERNMENT SPENDING BILL

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on one other important matter currently 
being discussed here in the Senate, conversations are ongoing about the 
way forward on a government spending bill. Our friends on the other 
side of the aisle sent me a letter that asked for this bill to reject 
poison pill riders. I would suggest that if they take their own advice, 
we can finish this negotiation and produce a good agreement that both 
sides can support.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                    ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE CONGRESS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with the media and others looking at the 
first 100 days or so of this new administration, and looking at this 
new Congress and the Republican majority, I think it bears reflecting 
on the last couple of months in the Congress under the new Trump 
administration and looking at some of the accomplishments that have 
been made on behalf of the American economy and the American people.
  We are committed to helping job creators do what they do best; that 
is, innovate, create more jobs, and employ more people, and not force 
those same job creators to waste time dealing with onerous rules and 
regulations that bear no relationship to public safety. With a like-
minded President, we have been able to deliver some real relief to the 
American people.
  One of the ways we have been able to do that is through a mechanism 
known as the Congressional Review Act. The Congressional Review Act was 
created to give Congress an opportunity to do away with regulations 
with which it disagrees. It allows Congress to act as a real check.

[[Page 5964]]

  The problem with regulations is, it is really a substitute for 
lawmaking. Of course, when Congress acts and passes laws, the President 
signs them, and then we are held accountable by the voters for the laws 
we pass. That is not so when it comes to the bureaucracy that writes 
regulations. Bureaucrats don't stand for election. Bureaucrats are not 
accountable to the people. So that is why it is really important for us 
to have a mechanism like the Congressional Review Act to act as a check 
on runaway regulation.
  By using this mechanism, the Congressional Review Act, with an ally 
in the White House, we have started undoing some of the thousands of 
burdensome rules and regulations created by the Obama administration--
rules and regulations that add up to a hefty pricetag for our country. 
By one estimate, the costs of these Obama-era regulations add up to 
more than $1 trillion. That is a tremendous wet blanket on the American 
economy. If the job creators have to pay somebody to help them comply 
with these onerous rules and regulations, they obviously are not paying 
somebody to grow their business and to be productive. By one estimate, 
the cost of these Obama regulations adds up to more than $1 trillion 
and more than 700 million hours of paperwork, but fortunately we have 
been able to chip away at them by working with the White House and 
focusing on bringing regulatory relief to the American people.
  Here is the tally so far. So far, we have been able to save the 
American economy $636 billion worth of regulatory relief. That adds up 
to 52 million hours of compliance time. Again, when somebody is busy 
complying with busy work mandated by a micromanaging Federal 
bureaucracy, they are not doing productive work.
  Now, some of these rules and regulations are things that we may not 
read or hear about in the headlines or the evening news--things like 
the stream buffer rule, the Bureau of Land Management planning rule, 
and the Securities and Exchange Commission resource extraction rule. 
These are not well-known rules and regulations, but they have a real 
cost on the American economy. There is a real reason why, after the 
great recession of 2008, our economy has been bouncing along at about 2 
percent real growth. That is not enough growth to keep hiring people as 
they come of age and become eligible to work in the workforce. We need 
the economy to grow faster, and one of the ways to do that is to 
relieve businesses and the economy of those overly onerous regulations.
  As I was thinking about it, I think what has happened to our economy 
is, it has died a death of 1,000 cuts. Each of these regulations, while 
they seem rather innocuous, in and of themselves, or people don't know 
about them, have actually accumulated to cause real damage to the 
American economy. So we have been able to help those small businesses 
that would like to hire more people to do productive work, to grow the 
economy, and to help pay their employees better wages. We have helped 
them by repealing these regulations to help our job creators and not 
hurt them.
  This has always been, to me, the mystery of Washington, DC. Back home 
in Texas, we look at the job creator as a positive influence on our 
economy, as somebody who is going to be creating a real opportunity for 
someone to find productive work and to pursue their dreams, but here in 
Washington so often the opposite seems to be true. It almost seemed 
like the attitude, particularly of the previous administration, was, 
What other obstacles can we put in the way of businesses? What other 
burdens can we impose upon the economy in the name of trying to 
micromanage the economy from Washington, DC? Well, I think what we have 
seen--the evidence is pretty clear--is anemic growth, and that is 
something we need to roll back, along with these rules and regulations.
  I am hopeful the President will be signing more of these 
Congressional Review Act initiatives soon. So far, he has signed 13 of 
them, and we have more in the queue.
  As we look ahead to big-ticket items we all want to make progress on, 
I am committed to continuing to work with all of our colleagues and the 
administration in doing all we can to help small businesses, family 
farmers, and entrepreneurs spend more time doing productive work and 
less time doing busy work mandated by the bureaucrats here in 
Washington, DC.
  One of those big-ticket items is tax reform. We have seen some big 
ideas floated out there by the House of Representatives and last night 
and today by the President and his Cabinet as well. I look forward to 
reviewing the proposal the President has made.
  There is no question there is a lot of room for reforming our Tax 
Code. Our Tax Code is literally a self-inflicted wound which damages 
our economy. We have trillions of dollars earned by American-based 
businesses earned overseas that they will not bring back because they 
don't want to be taxed twice on that money. We know our Tax Code is way 
too complicated. It is riddled with loopholes, inconsistencies, and 
provisions that impede job creation. Pro-growth tax reform should be 
our goal. It is something that has united Republicans and Democrats in 
the past, and there is no reason we shouldn't be united again in 
accomplishing that tax reform.
  So I look forward to hearing more about the President's proposal, and 
I applaud him for making a bold statement about the direction we ought 
to pursue. Now is finally the time to address it.
  All of these efforts--tax reform, rolling back unnecessary 
regulations and rules, and providing a better environment for 
businesses to thrive--are vital to getting our economy back on track 
and away from years of stagnant growth we saw under President Obama.
  I should note it is hard to argue with how business-friendly 
policies--and the promise of more--affect the economy and create an 
atmosphere conducive to building businesses and helping families get 
by.
  I think what we have seen is a resurgence of public confidence in the 
American economy. One index by Gallup suggests that business owners are 
now more optimistic than they have been since the summer of 2007. That 
is the kind of confidence and optimism that helps them grow their 
business and create opportunity for the working man and woman in our 
country, and it is a testament to the sea change we have seen over the 
last few months since the new administration came into office and the 
American people chose to retain Republican majorities in the House and 
the Senate. More family-run businesses are expecting us to keep putting 
forward policies that empower job creators, not to get in their way.
  I know we have only seen the first few months of the new Congress and 
we have only seen the first few months of a new Presidential 
administration, but I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish 
so far; frankly, without much help from our friends across the aisle 
who have done everything they can to slow-walk nominations and 
otherwise impede progress. I hope they realize that is bad politics, 
and it is not serving the interests of the American people very well. 
Sooner or later, enough Democrats are going to say: We came here not to 
just say no to every constructive proposal made but actually 
participate in the legislative process and work for the benefit of the 
American people.
  I look forward to doing even more to help those who want to bring 
more jobs and more economic growth to our communities across this great 
land.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________




                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved.

                          ____________________




                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

[[Page 5965]]



                          ____________________




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Acosta 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of R. Alexander Acosta, of 
Florida, to be Secretary of Labor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 
a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                        Government Spending Bill

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as Senators continue to negotiate the 
appropriations bills this week, I want to reiterate my hopes that we 
can reach an agreement by this Friday. So long as we try to operate 
within the parameters our parties have operated under for the last few 
spending bills, I am optimistic about the chances for a deal.
  I am glad the President has taken the wall off the table in the 
negotiations. Democrats have always been for border security. In fact, 
we supported one of the toughest border security packages in 
comprehensive immigration reform in an amendment offered by two of my 
Republican colleagues, Senator Hoeven and Senator Corker. We may 
address border security in this bill as well, but it will not include 
any funding for a wall, plain and simple.
  Now, we still have a few issues to work out, including the issue of 
cost sharing, Puerto Rico, and getting permanent healthcare for miners, 
which I was glad to hear the majority leader voice support for 
yesterday--permanent healthcare for miners. I want to salute Senator 
Manchin, who has worked so long and hard for these poor miners who have 
struggled and have had hard, hard, hard lives. They shouldn't have 
their health benefits taken away. But above all, in the bill we have to 
make sure there are no poison pill riders. That has been a watchword of 
our negotiations in the past and is what led to success, and I hope 
both sides of the aisle will pursue that now.
  We Democrats remain committed to fighting President Trump's cutback 
on women's health, a rollback of financial protections in Wall Street 
reform, rollbacks of protections for clean air and clean water, and 
against a deportation force. Those are the kinds of poison pill riders 
that could hurt an agreement, and I hope we will just decide at the 
given time that we can debate them in regular order, but they shouldn't 
hold the government hostage and pass them without debate.


                        The President's Tax Plan

  Mr. President, today we will also be hearing some details--we don't 
know how many--about the President's tax plan. We will take a look at 
what they are proposing, but I can tell you this: If the President's 
plan is to give a massive tax break to the very wealthy in this 
country--a plan that will mostly benefit people and businesses like 
President Trump's--that will not pass muster with Democrats.
  The very wealthy are doing pretty well in America. Their incomes keep 
going up. Their wealth keeps going up. God bless them. Let them do 
well. But they don't need another huge tax break while middle-class 
Americans and those struggling to get there need help just staying 
afloat. It is already the case that CEOs and other folks at the top of 
the corporate ladder can use deductions and loopholes to pay less in 
taxes than their secretaries. We don't need a plan that establishes the 
same principle in the basic rates by allowing wealthy businessmen, like 
President Trump, to use passthrough entities to pay 15 percent in taxes 
while everyone else pays in the twenties and thirties. We don't need a 
tax plan that allows the very rich to use passthroughs to reduce their 
rates to 15 percent while average Americans are paying much more. That 
is not tax reform. That is just a tax giveaway to the very, very 
wealthy that will explode the deficit.
  So we will take a look at what the President proposes later today. If 
it is just another deficit-busting tax break for the very wealthy, I 
predict their proposal will land with a dud with the American people.


                              North Korea

  Mr. President, later today, the Senate will be receiving a briefing 
by the administration on the situation in North Korea. I look forward 
to the opportunity to hear from the Secretary of State, who I 
understand drafted the administration's plan, and other senior 
administration officials about their views on North Korea and the 
posture of the United States in that region.
  I think what many of my colleagues hope to hear articulated is a 
coherent, well-thought-out, strategic plan. So far, Congress and the 
American public have heard very little in the way of strategy with 
respect to North Korea. We have heard very little about strategy to 
combat ISIS. We have heard very little about a strategy on how to deal 
with Putin's Russia. We have heard very little about our strategy in 
Syria. Only a few weeks ago, the President authorized a strike in 
Syria. Is there a broader strategy? Does the administration support 
regime change or not? Do they plan further U.S. involvement?
  These are difficult and important questions, and there are many more 
of them to be asked and answered about this administration's nascent 
national security policy for hotspots around the globe. I hope that 
later today, at least in relation to North Korea, we Senators are given 
a serious, well-considered outline of the administration's strategic 
goals in the Korean peninsula and their plans to achieve them.


                 The President's First One Hundred Days

  Mr. President, as we approach the 100-day mark of the Trump 
administration, we Democrats have been highlighting the litany of 
broken and unfulfilled promises that President Trump made to working 
families. It is our job as the minority party to hold the President 
accountable to the promises he made to voters, particularly the ones he 
made to working families who are struggling out there. Many of these 
folks voted for the President because they believed him when he 
promised to bring back their jobs or get tougher on trade or drain the 
swamp. So it is important to point out where the President has gone 
back on his word and where he has fallen short in these first 100 days.
  On the crucial issues of jobs and the economy, this President has 
made little progress in 100 days. His party hasn't introduced a major 
job-creating piece of legislation to date, and he has actually 
backtracked on his promises to get tough on trade and outsourcing, two 
things which have cost our country millions of jobs. I was particularly 
upset to see the President consider repealing President Obama's law 
that prevented corporate inversions that allowed big corporations to 
locate overseas to lower their tax rates.
  Instead of draining the swamp and making the government more 
accountable to the people, President Trump has filled his government 
with billionaires and bankers and folks ladened with conflicts of 
interest. Amazingly enough, he was going to clean up Washington and 
make it transparent. The White House has decided to keep the visitor 
log secret and, even worse, allowed waivers to lobbyists to come to 
work at the White House on the very same issues they were just lobbying 
on, and those waivers are kept secret. We will not even know about 
them.
  These reversals aren't the normal adjustments that a President makes 
when transitioning from a campaign to the reality of government; these 
are stunning about-faces on core promises the President made to working 
Americans.


                               TrumpCare

  Mr. President, I would like to focus now on one issue: the 
President's promises on healthcare. On the campaign trail, the 
President vowed to the American people that he would repeal and replace 
the Affordable Care Act with better healthcare that lowered costs, 
provided more generous coverage, and guaranteed insurance for everyone, 
with no changes to Medicare whatsoever. That is what he said. We are 
not saying this; he said that. Those are his words: I am going to cover 
everybody.

[[Page 5966]]

He said, ``We're going to have insurance for everybody . . . much less 
expensive and much better.''
  ``We're going to have insurance for everybody.'' But once in office, 
President Trump broke each and every one of these promises with the 
rollout of his healthcare bill, TrumpCare. Did TrumpCare lower costs, 
as he promised? No. The CBO said premiums would go up by as much as 20 
percent in the first few years under TrumpCare.
  His bill allowed insurance companies to charge older Americans a 
whopping five times the amount they could charge to younger folks, and 
it was estimated that senior citizens could have to pay as much as 
$14,000 or $15,000 more for healthcare, depending on their income and 
where they lived.
  Did his bill provide for better coverage? No. In fact, the most 
recent version of the TrumpCare bill would allow States to decide 
whether to protect folks who have preexisting conditions. This was one 
of the most popular things in ObamaCare, even if people didn't like 
some other parts of it. If you are a parent and your child has cancer, 
the insurance companies said: We are cutting you off, and you have to 
watch your child suffer because you can't afford healthcare. ACA, the 
Affordable Care Act, ended that. They couldn't cut you off or not give 
you insurance because your child or you had a serious illness that 
would cost the insurance company a lot of money. But now, in the 
proposal they are making, it is up to the States. Tough luck if you 
live in a State without it.
  Did his bill guarantee ``insurance for everyone''? That is what he 
said. No, far from it. The Congressional Budget Office said that 
TrumpCare would result in 24 million fewer Americans with health 
coverage after 10 years.
  Despite an explicit pledge from Candidate Trump on the eve of the 
election that he would protect Medicare--because hard-working Americans 
``made a deal a long time ago''--TrumpCare slashed more than $100 
billion from the Medicare trust fund.
  TrumpCare was the exact opposite of everything the President promised 
his healthcare bill would be. Americans should breathe a sigh of 
relief--a huge sigh of relief--that the bill didn't pass.
  There is a lack of fundamental honesty here. If you believe that 
there shouldn't be government involvement in healthcare and the private 
sector should do it all, that is a fine belief. I don't agree with it. 
But that means higher costs and less coverage for most Americans, and 
the President and, frankly, many of our Republican colleagues are 
trying to have it both ways. They want to say to their rightwing 
friends: I am making government's involvement much less. But then they 
say to the American people: You are going to get better coverage, more 
coverage, at lower rates. The two are totally inconsistent. That is why 
they are having such trouble with TrumpCare over in the House, and 
there will be even worse trouble here in the Senate, if it ever gets 
here, which I hope it doesn't.
  Healthcare is another example of why this President has so little to 
show for his first 100 days. Instead of reaching out to Democrats to 
find areas where we could compromise on improving our healthcare 
system--we Democrats have always said: Don't repeal ObamaCare; improve 
it. We know it needs to have some changes. But, instead, they started 
out on their own in a partisan way, the very same party that criticized 
President Obama for working just with Democrats on the issue, despite a 
yearlong effort to try. So it failed, and it is emblematic of the 
President's first 100 days. The President's ``my way or the highway'' 
approach is one of the main reasons he has so little to show on 
healthcare and so little to show for his first 100 days in office.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Flake pertaining to the introduction of S. 946 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during the quorum call be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FLAKE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Remembering Jay Dickey

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I come to the floor to honor the memory of 
former Congressman Jay Dickey, who passed on April 20. When Jay Dickey 
roamed the Halls of Congress, you knew there might be mischief afoot--
and what merry mischief it was.
  Jay was opinionated, colorful, and zany. Now that he has passed, the 
warm laughter of memories once again echoes in these cold, marble halls 
as we reflect on his life.
  He died last Thursday after a battle with Parkinson's, a battle he 
fought like every other--with determination and gusto. I, for one, will 
miss his counsel and friendship, as will the people of Arkansas whom he 
loved so deeply.
  Jay was an Arkansas original. He was born and bred and in the end 
breathed his last in his hometown of Pine Bluff. He shared a lot in 
common with the mighty pines of South Arkansas. He stood tall and proud 
of his community's heritage. He was a pillar of the community. A lawyer 
and a businessman, he left his mark as an entrepreneur, starting 
franchises throughout the State, as an advocate representing the city 
and later taking on such famous clients as coach Eddie Sutton.
  Unlike the proverbial tree in the forest, now that Jay Dickey has 
fallen, the whole State has taken notice.
  But, of course, a man's accomplishments are only a window into his 
character. You had to know Jay personally to get a sense of all the fun 
there was inside him. It was as if his feet had sunk deep into the soil 
and soaked up all of the Natural State's richness: its humor, its 
earnestness, and its strip-the-bark-off candor.
  I got to know Jay in my first political campaign. We had never met, 
and I was a political newcomer, but Jay spent many hours getting to 
know me and ultimately supported my candidacy, which helped to put me 
on the map.
  Of course, Jay shared a lot of candid advice too. After attending one 
of my early townhalls, Jay and I went to lunch down the road at Cracker 
Barrel. I asked him how I did. Jay replied:

       Ya did good. Ya did good. But you gotta cut it down some. 
     Ya see that baked potato there? That's a fully loaded baked 
     potato--it's got cheese, sour cream, bacon, onions. Your 
     answers are like that fully loaded baked potato! Make em like 
     a plain potato.

  That is just one of the countless stories that added to his legend.
  This was the man who offered a ninth grader a college-level 
internship because he thought the kid had potential; the man who 
answered any phone in his office that rang twice, just to keep his 
staff on their toes; the man whose dog once drove his truck into a 
radio station in Hampton because he left the truck running during an 
interview to keep the dog cool, and somehow that dog put it in gear; 
the man who kept a picture of Jesus on his wall, and who,

[[Page 5967]]

when meeting a new client, would point to the picture and say: ``Have 
you met my friend?''
  Yes, the first great joy of his life was his faith, but the second 
great joy was politics. Jay was the first Republican elected to 
Congress from South Arkansas since Reconstruction. He won in 1992, the 
very same year Arkansas elected our Democratic Governor as President.
  Despite being who the Democrats must have viewed as the most 
Republican incumbent in the country, he held onto that seat for almost 
a decade. Arkansans knew good stock when they saw it. He lost only by 
the narrowest of margins in 2000, with President Bill Clinton 
campaigning for his opponent, then-State Senator Mike Ross. True to 
form for Jay, he and Mike would become friends after that race, 
speaking regularly about issues and their faith.
  Jay's time in office will not be remembered as a historical oddity, 
an anomaly, or a one-off because unconventional though it was, it was 
also a forerunner of things to come. It was an early sign of a coming 
political realignment, as the small towns that dotted rural America--
towns where few people had ever even seen a Republican, never mind 
voted for one--were starting to cast their votes up and down the ballot 
for the Grand Old Party.
  In other words, Jay Dickey was a trailblazer--or perhaps a bulldozer. 
He smashed through history and precedent and grooved a path in rough 
terrain for the rest of us to follow. For that, he has my thanks and 
the thanks of the people of Arkansas, and for his humorous, quirky, 
unparalleled example, he has the thanks of the U.S. Congress, which 
today is a little sadder for his passing but also a little brighter for 
his memory.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on Monday morning I stood with workers 
and fellow public officials in Bridgeport, CT, to commemorate the 30th 
anniversary of the L'Ambiance Plaza disaster. Thirty years ago last 
Sunday, L'Ambiance Plaza collapsed, 28 families lost loved ones, and 22 
others were seriously injured in the collapse. Their worlds collapsed 
as the lift-slab construction used as the device for building 
L'Ambiance Plaza, in effect, imploded.
  The workers were constructing a 16-story apartment building when that 
disaster happened. The lift-slab construction method used at that site 
subsequently was banned. It was banned because it was unsafe.
  That disaster was preventable, as so many workplace injuries and 
deaths are preventable. That was a tragedy in the modern American 
workplace 30 years ago--L'Ambiance Plaza. It is an urgent and great 
need for this Nation to confront. L'Ambiance Plaza collapsed, 
literally, within seconds, and when it was over, the 28 workers who 
woke up that day and left their homes never came back. Their families, 
who said good-bye, never saw them again alive. They were victims of 
workplace dangers that day, but so many others have followed them 
since.
  Those families are still affected, still grieving. One of them spoke 
at that ceremony on Monday morning, and it provides for many of us the 
memories of that day when literally hundreds of workers from throughout 
Connecticut went to that site, digging, often by hand, through the 
wreckage, trying to find the living survivors. On that day, and every 
day since, I have sought to increase the safety of our workplaces and 
avoid those kinds of tragedies. That is why I am here today, because 
that pledge would be, in my view, inconsistent with voting for the 
nomination of Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor.
  I will state at the outset that I commend Mr. Acosta for his record 
of public service during the Presidency of George W. Bush, serving as a 
National Labor Relations Board member and holding two positions at the 
Department of Justice, as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Rights Division and, later, as U.S. attorney for the Southern District 
of Florida. I want to thank him for his willingness to serve again. I 
say that in all seriousness, as a former U.S. attorney myself.
  I believe that, as Secretary of Labor, he will have important 
responsibilities if he is confirmed in the area of enforcement, and I 
am constrained to oppose his nomination because I believe, No. 1, that 
this administration needs a champion, not simply a bystander, and Mr. 
Acosta has given me no reason at his hearings and in his record to 
assure me that he will overcome what I see as a bias against 
enforcement in this administration.
  Last month President Trump proposed a budget that guts the Department 
of Labor. The budget admittedly is short on specifics and boasts little 
more than one page about the agency that is tasked with ensuring the 
safety of tens of millions of American workers. Let me make clear: It 
would slash resources at the Department of Labor by 21 percent. That is 
$2.5 billion. That means 21 percent fewer inspectors, 21 percent fewer 
investigators, 21 percent less enforcement. That is one-fifth less 
enforcement, when, in fact, five times more enforcement is appropriate. 
The budget, although short on details, singled out programs that helped 
to train workers and employers in ways to ensure avoidance of hazards 
on the job.
  President Trump has proposed the elimination--the zeroing out--of 
that program. At his confirmation hearing last month, Mr. Acosta 
demonstrated neither a willingness nor an interest in challenging the 
budget or the President's priorities, stressing that his soon-to-be 
boss, President Trump, guides the ship. I find that view and 
perspective alarming. There is an old saying that budgets are ``moral 
documents.'' It is a saying frequently repeated, but it has a real 
meaning when it comes to enforcement of worker safety. It has a real 
meaning to real people in their lives or loss of lives. It is a matter 
of life or death. Where you put scarce dollars and resources reveals 
moral values and moral priorities.
  President Trump has put his values on clear display in this budget. 
He believes in building a wall, a needless show project that he 
mentioned repeatedly in his budget, but he has given short shrift or no 
shrift to efforts that protect people who go every day to workplaces 
where they are in serious jeopardy, and where--as in L'Ambiance Plaza--
they can lose their lives. Voting for Mr. Acosta would mean failing to 
keep that pledge that I believe I made to the families of L'Ambiance, 
to the workers who lost their lives there, and to countless other 
workers in danger every day in workplaces that must be made safer--and 
can be--through vigorous enforcement of rules and laws that exist now 
and improvement of those laws.
  One of the greatest challenges facing our Nation today is fairness in 
the workplace, particularly fairness in pay for women, fairness 
concerning pay disparity between men and women, with women making a 
fraction of what men make for the same work. On this critical issue 
also, this nominee is silent. On other issues critical to the modern 
workplace--overtime pay, minimum wage, protecting workers' retirement, 
fighting discrimination, matters that affect women and minorities more 
than others--he has said little or nothing, certainly little to 
indicate that he will be an enforcer of laws that protect minorities 
and women and others who may be the victims of discrimination.
  There is no question that this nominee is far better than the 
President's first proposed person to fill this job, Andy Puzder, who 
rightly and fortunately withdrew, but the standard we should use is not 
whether he is better than his predecessor, who was found wanting even 
before the vote was taken, but rather whether they can be trusted to 
protect workers, to enforce rules vigorously and fairly, and to fight 
for a budget and a set of priorities that are critical to the future of 
American

[[Page 5968]]

workers. On that score, unfortunately, I answer this question with a 
clear ``no,'' and I will vote against this nominee.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to oppose the nomination of 
Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor.
  I did not come to this decision lightly, but, after closely examining 
Mr. Acosta's record, I cannot in good conscience vote for his 
confirmation to be Labor Secretary on behalf of the American people.
  The most troubling part of Mr. Acosta's record is how he handled a 
2007 sex trafficking case that he oversaw while serving as the U.S. 
attorney for the Southern District of Florida. In that case, which left 
many vulnerable victims devastated when it concluded, Mr. Acosta failed 
to protect underage crime victims who looked to his office to vindicate 
their rights against billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.
  The case, led by Mr. Acosta's office and the FBI, involved an 
investigation of Mr. Epstein for his sexual abuse and exploitation of 
more than 30 underage girls.
  It ended with an agreement, negotiated by Mr. Acosta's office, in 
which Mr. Acosta agreed not to bring Federal charges, including sex 
trafficking charges, against Mr. Epstein in exchange for his guilty 
plea to State charges and registration as a sex offender. Thanks to 
this agreement, Mr. Epstein served a mere 13 months of jail time and 
avoided serious Federal charges that would have exposed him to lengthy 
prison sentences.
  What troubles me about this case is not just the leniency with which 
Mr. Epstein was treated, but how the victims themselves were treated.
  In 2004, I authored the Crime Victims' Rights Act with then-Senator 
Kyl because we both saw that victims and their families were too 
frequently ``ignored, cast aside, and treated as nonparticipants in a 
critical event in their lives.'' I strongly believe victims have a 
right to be heard throughout criminal case proceedings.
  My concern with how Mr. Acosta handled this case stems from his 
office's obligations under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. The victims 
have asserted that Mr. Acosta's office did not provide them with notice 
of the agreement before it was finalized, nor were they provided with 
timely notice of Mr. Epstein's guilty plea and sentencing hearings. 
Worse, throughout the process, the victims were denied the reasonable 
right to confer with the prosecutors; this flies in the face of the 
Crime Victims' Rights Act we authored.
  I am very concerned that Mr. Acosta's office did not treat the 
victims ``with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and 
privacy'' as required by law. Rather, according to the victims, Mr. 
Acosta's office ``deliberately kept [them] `in the dark' so that it 
could enter the deal'' without hearing objections. These allegations 
raise serious concerns.
  From his position of immense power and responsibility, Mr. Acosta 
failed, and the consequences were devastating.
  Another deeply troubling aspect of Mr. Acosta's record comes from his 
tenure when he led the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division from 
August 2003 to June 2005. According to the Justice Department's 
inspector general, that office repeatedly used political or ideological 
tests to hire career civil servants in violation of federal law.
  During his confirmation hearing before the HELP Committee, Mr. Acosta 
himself admitted that discriminatory actions were taken under his 
supervision and that they should not have happened.
  At a time when the public's faith in government institutions is 
eroding on a daily basis, Mr. Acosta's handling of these high-profile 
incidents lead me to question his ability to carry out the duties of 
Labor Secretary with fairness and impartiality.
  This doubt is further compounded by statements that Mr. Acosta made 
during his hearing regarding whether he will exercise independence in 
upholding and enforcing certain rules and regulations, such as the 
fiduciary rule and overtime rule to protect workers.
  In response to such questions, Mr. Acosta avoided making a commitment 
to uphold these rules as Secretary of Labor, and I am greatly concerned 
that he may not look out for the best interests of workers.
  All of the issues I have outlined here simply do not allow me, in 
good faith, to vote in favor of Mr. Acosta's nomination.
  Thank you.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to complete my remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I am honored to speak here today in support 
of Alex Acosta, and I wholeheartedly encourage my colleagues to support 
his nomination to be our next Secretary of Labor. I know this nominee 
well. As a fellow Floridian and as a native of Miami, I have been 
familiar with his work for many years. As I said when the President 
nominated him, I think he is an outstanding choice to lead the 
Department of Labor.
  Alex has an impressive academic record. He has two degrees from 
Harvard--the first from Harvard College and then from Harvard Law 
School.
  He also has a sterling record of public service in the State of 
Florida and in the United States of America. He was a member of the 
National Labor Relations Board. He was appointed by President George W. 
Bush and served from 2002 to 2003. From there, he was selected by 
President Bush to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where he also served 
as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in that office. He also 
served our Nation as the U.S. Attorney in one of the most challenging 
districts in our country--Florida's Southern District.
  Most recently, Alex has served the State of Florida as the dean of 
Florida International University College of Law, where he has been 
instrumental in raising the still young school's profile and in its 
graduating young men and women who are now well prepared to excel in 
their legal careers.
  With every challenge he has confronted throughout his distinguished 
career, he has demonstrated his ability to effectively tackle with ease 
the problems at hand. He is a brilliant legal mind, someone with a deep 
knowledge of labor issues, and he is a proven leader and a proven 
manager. It is for these reasons and many more that I am confident that 
Alex Acosta will serve this Nation admirably.
  He was--listen to this--previously confirmed unanimously by the 
Senate for three different positions in the U.S. Government. This man 
is not even 50 years old, and he has already been confirmed unanimously 
by the Senate for three separate positions. I believe that in a few 
moments, he will be one step closer to being confirmed to his fourth. 
He is well qualified for this role, and I look forward to working with 
him to ensure that Americans are equipped with the skills they need to 
be successful in the 21st-century economy.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of R. Alexander Acosta, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor.
         John Barrasso, Susan M. Collins, Ron Johnson, Deb 
           Fischer, Luther Strange, Bill Cassidy, Lindsey Graham, 
           John Boozman, Mike Rounds, David Perdue, Lamar 
           Alexander, Tom Cotton, Orrin G. Hatch, Todd Young, 
           Mitch McConnell, Joni Ernst, Dan Sullivan.


[[Page 5969]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of R. Alexander Acosta, of Florida, to be Secretary of Labor 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Ex.]

                                YEAS--61

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shelby
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--39

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). On this vote, the yeas are 61, 
the nays are 39.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, when workers and families fought back 
against President Trump's first disastrous pick for Secretary of Labor, 
Andrew Puzder, they made it clear that they want a Secretary of Labor 
who will fight for their interests, especially as President Trump 
continues to break promise after promise he made to workers on the 
campaign trail. I couldn't agree with them more. As bad as Puzder would 
have been, our standard cannot be ``not Puzder.''
  Never has it been so critical to have a Secretary of Labor who is 
committed to putting workers' protections and rights first, even if 
that means standing up to President Trump. It is with this in mind that 
I cannot support Alexander Acosta to run the Department of Labor.
  Given Mr. Acosta's professional history, I have serious concerns 
about whether undue political pressure would impact decision making at 
the Department. My concerns were only heightened at his nomination 
hearing, when Mr. Acosta said he would defer to President Trump on the 
priorities of the Department of Labor. The Trump administration has 
already cemented a reputation for flouting ethics rules and attempting 
to exert political pressure over Federal employees. We need a Secretary 
of Labor who will prioritize workers and the mission of the Department 
of Labor over special interests and political pressure.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Acosta's time leading the civil rights division at 
the Department of Justice suggests he will not be the mission-focused 
Secretary of Labor workers across the country have demanded. A formal 
investigation by the inspector general showed that, under Acosta's 
tenure, the civil rights division illegally considered applicants' 
political opinions in making hiring decisions, ignoring their 
professional qualifications. As Assistant Attorney General, Acosta 
chose to recuse himself from consideration of a Texas redistricting 
plan, instead, allowing political appointees to overrule career 
attorneys who believe the plan discriminated against Black and Latino 
voters.
  Mr. Acosta's past raises questions about whether--instead of making 
workers' rights and protections the priorities of that Department--he 
will allow political pressure to influence his decision making.
  Mr. Acosta's refusal to take a strong stand on many of the most 
pressing issues workers face today was equally concerning. We need a 
Secretary of Labor who is committed to expanding overtime pay to more 
workers, fighting for equal pay, and maintaining protections for our 
workers. But in responding to questions about those priorities, Mr. 
Acosta made it clear that he simply plans to defer to President Trump, 
who has already made it abundantly clear that he will not stand up for 
workers.
  Mr. Acosta continued to evade addressing my concerns about how he 
would prioritize workers' interests at the Department of Labor in our 
followup questions. We need a Secretary of Labor who will remain 
committed to the core principles of the Department of Labor--someone 
who will prioritize the best interests of our workforce, who will 
enforce laws that protect workers' rights and safety and livelihoods, 
and who will seek to expand economic opportunities for workers and 
families across our country.
  Unfortunately, Alexander Acosta has failed to show he will stand up 
to President Trump and prioritize those principles and help our workers 
get ahead. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to listen to the millions of 
workers who have made their voices heard about the need for a Secretary 
of Labor who is committed to building an economy that works for 
everyone, not just those at the top, and vote against this nomination.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 948 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Gulf of Mexico Oil Drilling Moratorium

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to address the Senate on the 
occasion of the solemn memorial of 7 years since the Deepwater Horizon 
explosion and the resulting oilspill, where 11 workmen were tragically 
killed.
  The oilspill fouled the sensitive gulf ecosystem in ways that we 
still do not fully realize. Yet we are hearing today that the President 
is expected to issue an Executive order this week that ignores the 
implications of that tragedy, which was also the largest environmental 
disaster in U.S. history, by blindly encouraging more drilling in very 
sensitive areas.
  I can tell you that drilling off the coast of Florida's neighboring 
States poses a real threat to our State's environment and our 
multibillion-dollar tourism industry, and that is because a spill off 
the coast of Louisiana can end up on the beaches of northwest Florida, 
just like a spill off the coast of Virginia or South Carolina can 
affect the entire Atlantic coast.
  BP, as a result of Deepwater Horizon, agreed to pay more than $20 
billion in penalties to clean up the 2010 oilspill and repay gulf 
residents for lost revenue. But, apparently, that wasn't enough, if 
BP's recent spill in Alaska is any indication.
  So we shouldn't be surprised, since oil companies and their friends 
have fought against any new safety standards or requirements, that the 
President still wants to open up additional waters to drilling, despite 
the fact that we haven't applied the lessons learned from Deepwater 
Horizon. This is at a time when the United States has been able to find 
all new reserves of oil and gas onshore. So we are not in a time of a 
shortage of discovery or a shortage of oil reserves. Our domestic 
energy market is being affected by the low price of natural gas, since 
so much of the reserves are just tremendous here in the continental 
United States.

[[Page 5970]]

  The most visible change since the Deepwater Horizon spill is the 
division of the Minerals Management Service into the Bureau of Ocean 
Energy Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement. All of those changes were made as a result of trying to 
improve things after the BP spill, but it doesn't seem to have made any 
major improvements in oversight, according to a report issued by the 
GAO last month.
  So I have come to the floor to try to alert other Senators about the 
importance of preserving the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of 
Mexico. It makes no sense to put Florida's multibillion-dollar, 
tourism-driven economy at risk.
  And there is something else at risk.
  The Department of Defense has stated numerous times--I have two 
letters from two Republican Secretaries of Defense that say it--that 
drilling and oil-related activities are incompatible with our military 
training and weapons testing. That is the area known as the gulf 
training range. It is in the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. It is the 
largest testing and training range for the United States military in 
the world.
  Now, in that gulf training range is where the pilots of the F-22 are 
trained. That is at Tyndall Air Force Base. It is where the new F-35 
pilots are trained, by the way, not only for the United States but also 
for the many foreign nations that have bought F-35s. Of course, that is 
essential to our national security.
  That is just pilot training. That doesn't speak of the testing done 
on some of our most sophisticated weapons over hundreds and hundreds of 
miles of restricted airspace.
  Oh, by the way, when the U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet shut down our 
training in Puerto Rico and the island of Vieques, where do you think a 
lot of that training came to? The Navy still has to train. So they will 
send their squadrons down to Key West Naval Air Station at Boca Chica 
Key. When those pilots and their F-18 Hornets lift off the runway, 
within 2 minutes they are out over the Gulf of Mexico in restricted 
airspace. So they don't spend a lot of fuel and a lot of time to get 
there.
  That is why a lot of our colleagues across the State of Florida on 
the other side of the aisle--in other words, this is bipartisan--have 
weighed in with this administration, urging continued protection for 
the largest military testing and training area in the world.
  Opposition to drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is bipartisan, 
bicameral--the Senate and House--but so is our opposition to drilling 
off the Atlantic coast.
  Now, let me just distinguish between the two. Years ago, my then-
Republican colleague Senator Mel Martinez and I both offered in law an 
exemption until the year 2022 of any oil drilling off of the coast of 
Florida. It is actually everything east of what is called the Military 
Mission Line. It is virtually the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida. Of 
course we did that for the reasons that I have already stated. That is 
in law up until 2022. But the administration will be coming forth with 
another plan for the 5-year period for oil drilling offshore for the 
years 2023 up through 2028.
  It is my hope that the words of this Senator and the words of our 
bipartisan colleagues from the Florida delegation will convince the 
administration that it is not wise to impede the military's necessary 
training and testing area, not even to speak of the tremendous economic 
deprivation that will come as a result of an oilspill.
  Just think back to the BP spill. Think back to the time when the 
beaches, the sugary-white sands of Pensacola Beach, were completely 
covered with oil. That picture--a very notable picture, a contrast of 
the black oil on top of the white sand--went around the world.
  The winds started blowing the oil from the BP spill off the coast of 
Louisiana. The winds continued to blow it to the east, and so some of 
the oil got into Pensacola Bay, some of the oil started getting into 
Choctawhatchee Bay, and some oil got on the beautiful beaches of Destin 
and Fort Walton Beach. The winds took it as far east as the Panama City 
beaches. There they received basically tar balls on the beach. Then the 
winds reversed and started taking it back to the west, so none of the 
other beaches all the way down the coast of Florida--Clearwater, St. 
Petersburg, on down to the beaches off of Bradenton, Sarasota, Fort 
Myers, Naples, and all the way down to Marco Island--none of those 
beaches received the oil because the wind didn't keep blowing it that 
way. But the entire west coast of Florida lost an entire tourist season 
because our guests, our visitors, the tourists, didn't come because 
they had seen those pictures and they thought that oil was on all of 
our beaches.
  Let me tell you how risky that was. In the Gulf of Mexico, there is 
something known as the Loop Current. It comes through the separation of 
the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and the western end of Cuba and goes up 
into the gulf, and then it loops and comes south in the gulf. It hugs 
the Florida Keys and becomes the Gulf Stream that hugs the east coast 
of Florida. And about midway down the peninsula, it starts to leave the 
coast, follows and parallels the east coast of the United States, and 
eventually goes to Northern Europe. That is the Gulf Stream.
  Had that oilspill been blown south from Louisiana and had the Loop 
Current come enough north, that oilspill would have gotten in the Loop 
Current, and it would have taken it down past the very fragile coral 
reefs of the Florida Keys and right up the beaches of Southeast 
Florida, where there is a huge tourism business.
  By the way, the Gulf Stream hugs the coast in some cases only a mile 
off of the beach.
  That is the hard economic reality of what could happen to Florida's 
tourism industry, not only on the west coast, as it already did in that 
season of the BP oilspill, but what could happen on the east coast of 
Florida too.
  Opposition to drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is certainly 
bipartisan, but so is the opposition to drilling off the Atlantic 
coast. In the last Congress, Members from both parties joined together 
to file a House companion to the legislation this Senator had filed 
that would prohibit seismic testing in the Atlantic off of Florida. The 
type of seismic airgun testing companies wanted to use to search for 
oil and gas would threaten thousands of marine mammals and fish, 
including endangered species such as the North American right whale. 
The blast from seismic airguns can cause permanent hearing loss for 
whales and dolphins, which disrupts their feeding, calving, and 
breeding.
  In addition to the environmental damage those surveys would cause, 
businesses up and down the Atlantic coast would also suffer from 
drilling activity. Over 35,000 businesses and over 500,000 commercial 
fishing families have registered their opposition to offshore drilling 
in the Atlantic. From fishermen, to hotel owners, to restaurateurs, 
coastal residents and business owners understand it is too dangerous to 
risk the environment and the economy on which they depend.
  There is one unique industry that opposes drilling off the Florida 
east coast. We made the case way back in the 1980s when Secretary of 
the Interior James Watt decided he was going to drill from Cape 
Hatteras, NC, all the way south to Fort Pierce, FL. This Senator was a 
young Congressman then and took this case on and finally convinced the 
Appropriations Committee not to include any funds for the execution and 
offering of those leases. It was a simple fact that that was where we 
were launching our space shuttle then, as well as our military rockets 
from Cape Canaveral, and you simply can't have oil rigs out there and 
be dropping the first stages and the solid rocket boosters from the 
space shuttle.
  As we know, the Cape has come alive with activity--a lot of 
commercial rocketry, as well as the mainstays for our military space 
program. In a year and a half, NASA will launch the largest rocket 
ever, one-third more powerful than the Saturn V, which was the rocket 
that took us to the Moon, and

[[Page 5971]]

that is the beginning of the Mars program, as we are going to Mars with 
humans. Because of that space industry--whether it is commercial or 
whether it is civilian NASA or whether it is military--you simply can't 
have oil rigs out there in the Atlantic where we are dropping the first 
stages of those rockets. That is common sense.
  When President Obama took the Atlantic coast off the table from 2017 
to 2022--that 5-year period planning in the offshore drilling plan--
Floridians finally breathed a deep sigh of relief. They sighed happily 
too. If President Trump intends to open up those areas to drilling, his 
administration will receive and can expect to receive a flood of 
opposition from the folks who know what is going to happen.
  It is this week--and here we are midweek--that we are expecting the 
Trump administration to move forward with an Executive order that would 
ignore the wishes of coastal communities. I want to say that the areas 
off of Florida in the east coast of the Atlantic are very sensitive, as 
I have just outlined, but there is nothing to say that if you have a 
spill off of Georgia or South Carolina, that it can't move south, and 
that starts the problem all over.
  This announcement by the President will be like a big present for the 
oil companies, which, by the way, in areas in the Gulf of Mexico that 
are rich with oil--and there are, in fact, active leases that are not 
producing the oil. Why would they want to grant more leases in areas 
that are important to preserve the Nation's economy as well as our 
military preparedness?
  I hope the President thinks twice before putting Florida's economy at 
such a risk. I hope he refrains from issuing this Executive order, but 
if he doesn't, this Senator and a bipartisan delegation from Florida 
will fight this order.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my 
colleagues in the Senate to oppose the nomination of Alexander Acosta 
for Labor Secretary.
  The test of whether a nominee is qualified to be Labor Secretary is a 
pretty simple one: Will that person stand up for 150 million American 
workers and their families? Mr. Acosta has had multiple opportunities 
in more than 2 months since he was nominated for this position to 
demonstrate that he would stand up for workers, and time after time, he 
has refused.
  Americans deserve to know where a nominee like Mr. Acosta stands on 
key policy matters that will have a powerful impact on the lives of 
working people.
  At Mr. Acosta's confirmation hearing, I asked him where he stood on 
three policy issues that are important to working Americans and their 
families.
  First, will you promise not to delay a rule that will protect 2.3 
million Americans from being poisoned by lethal cancer-causing silica 
on the job?
  Second, will you appeal a Texas court's injunction that has halted 
implementation of a new overtime rule that would give 4.2 million 
Americans a $1.5 billion raise in a single year?
  And third, will you promise not to delay a rule that will stop 
investment advisers from cheating retirees out of an estimated $17 
billion a year?
  Now, these are not tough questions. For most people, these would have 
been total softballs: Will you keep workers from being poisoned, will 
you make sure that employers pay for overtime, and will you make sure 
that investment advisers aren't cheating retirees? Come on. This is the 
very least that a Labor Secretary can do--the very least.
  Mr. Acosta refused to answer a single one of these questions. 
Instead, he bobbed and weaved, stalled and repeated my questions; he 
even insisted that these topics were so complex that he needed more 
time to study them. And it wasn't just my questions that Mr. Acosta 
refused to answer. He spent more than 2 hours ducking, hand-waving, and 
dodging basic questions from committee members--both Democrats and 
Republicans--questions about whether he would commit to stand up for 
workers on issues that profoundly affect their health, their safety, 
and their economic security.
  Mr. Acosta has been so evasive about his views that we still have 
virtually no idea what he will do to help or harm workers if he is 
confirmed for this job.
  The fact that Mr. Acosta isn't willing to step up on easy questions 
and tell us that he will be on the side of workers tells us a lot about 
him--and none of it is good.
  That is particularly troubling, since Mr. Acosta is President Trump's 
nominee, and we can see how President Trump treats workers. In less 
than 100 days on the job, President Trump has managed to kill, weaken, 
or undermine an unprecedented number of protections for working people.
  He signed a bill to make it easier for government contractors to 
steal wages from their employees.
  He signed a bill to make it easier for employers to hide injuries and 
deaths that their workers suffer on the job.
  He signed a bill to keep cities from offering retirement accounts to 
more than 2 million employees who don't have access to a retirement 
plan on the job.
  He delayed a rule protecting workers from lethal, cancer-causing 
beryllium.
  He delayed a rule protecting construction workers from deadly silica.
  And he delayed a rule preventing investment advisers from cheating 
retirees--a rule that will save hard-working Americans about $17 
billion a year.
  That is a pretty long list, and it doesn't even include the 
devastating impact to workers of the President's proposed 20-percent 
cut to the Labor Department funding, which means fewer cops on the beat 
when employers steal wages or force people into unsafe working 
conditions.
  During his campaign, President Trump talked a big game about standing 
up for workers and creating good, high-paying jobs. But if his first 
100 days are any indication, his real plan is to keep corporate profits 
soaring by gutting the rules that American workers depend on to keep 
money in their pockets, food on their tables, and to keep them safe in 
the workplace.
  Unlike President Trump's first failed nominee for this job, Mr. 
Acosta is not openly contemptuous of people who work hard for a living, 
and I suppose we should be thankful for that. But that is not the test 
for Labor Secretary. The test for Labor Secretary is whether this 
person will stand up for American workers.
  Mr. Acosta won't make that commitment, and he has made it perfectly 
clear that he sure won't stand up to President Trump. That is just not 
good enough. Because of this ongoing evasiveness, I have no confidence 
that Mr. Acosta is the right choice for this position, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing his confirmation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the role.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak 
therein for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                      NOMINATION OF ROD ROSENSTEIN

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about my vote 
yesterday

[[Page 5972]]

on the nomination of Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General at 
the U.S. Department of Justice. I voted no on his nomination not 
because I think he is unqualified or because I think he is unfit for 
the job. He is neither of those things. Rather, I opposed his 
nomination because of the troubling actions the Justice Department is 
taking on criminal justice, civil rights, and immigration issues and 
because I firmly believe a special prosecutor is needed to investigate 
Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.
  Since taking over as our Nation's top law enforcement official, 
Attorney General Sessions has indicated he wishes to roll back certain 
actions taken during the Obama administration. For instance, Attorney 
General Sessions is considering changes to existing Justice Department 
drug charging policies. I am concerned he will direct Federal 
prosecutors to increase the use of mandatory minimum penalties in low-
level, nonviolent drug cases. Since 1980, our Federal prison population 
has increased by nearly 800 percent in large part because of the failed 
war on drugs and the use of mandatory minimums. Increasing the 
utilization of mandatory minimums will not make us safer or fix our 
broken criminal justice system. To the contrary, it will come at great 
cost--not only to American taxpayers, but to public safety, to 
families, and to confidence in our justice system. As Deputy Attorney 
General, Mr. Rosenstein will play a critical role in enacting those 
changes to existing charging policies.
  Attorney General Sessions also recently indicated that the Justice 
Department may reverse its policy on the use of consent decrees to 
combat civil rights abuses by law enforcement when they occur. He has 
consistently criticized the use of consent decrees, and in his first 
major speech as Attorney General, he vowed to ``pull back'' on Federal 
suits against State and local police departments for civil rights 
abuses. There is no doubt that America's law enforcement community 
deserves our utmost respect and protection. These brave women and men 
have answered the call to serve and the vast majority of them serve 
with integrity. However, the Justice Department plays a critical role 
in assisting police departments struggling to combat systemic practices 
that unfairly target minorities. Scaling back on the use of consent 
decrees means civil rights violations may not be remedied. As Deputy 
Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein will play a critical role in reversing 
course on the use of consent decrees.
  Finally, the pending investigation into Russian interference in the 
2016 Presidential election has caused deep concern and anxiety for many 
Americans. We owe it to the public to conduct an investigation that is 
beyond reproach and ensure that every person, regardless of their 
political affiliation, has confidence in the results no matter what 
they are. While Mr. Rosenstein is undoubtedly a man of integrity, such 
an investigation can only be conducted by an independent, special 
prosecutor. It concerns me that, in his confirmation hearing, Mr. 
Rosenstein would not commit to appointing such a person.
  Mr. Rosenstein has served his country with honor and distinction. He 
is well respected on both sides of the aisle. In most circumstances, I 
believe I would have supported his nomination. However, the disturbing 
agenda on civil and human rights of the Trump administration and the 
actions Attorney General Sessions continues to advance at the Justice 
Department and Mr. Rosenstein's responses to questions regarding this 
agenda at his confirmation hearing leave me deeply troubled about the 
role he will play as the second highest ranking individual at the 
Department. For those reasons, I voted no on his nomination to be 
Deputy Attorney General.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I supported Rod Rosenstein's 
nomination to become Deputy Attorney General. Throughout his 27-year 
career, Mr. Rosenstein has earned a reputation as a fair and focused 
administrator of justice. He has served in Maryland in both Republican 
and Democratic administrations and has earned the distinction of being 
the longest serving U.S. attorney in the country.
  I had the honor to introduce Mr. Rosenstein to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee at his confirmation hearing. He has aggressively prosecuted 
not only dangerous gangs and criminals in Maryland but also elected 
officials who violated the people's trust. He has shown impartiality in 
these investigations, and his successful prosecutions have led to 
ethics reforms that increased transparency and public confidence in 
Maryland.
  When Mr. Rosenstein and I met recently, I asked him if he supported 
the consent decree negotiated between the Obama administration and the 
city of Baltimore. He assured me that, if the court formally entered 
the consent decree, he would support its implementation. Attorney 
General Sessions, however, has frequently expressed skepticism about 
consent decrees. Baltimore is the only city to invite the Justice 
Department to conduct a thorough, methodical analysis of its police 
department in order to foster transparency and increase trust between 
police officers and Baltimore city residents. As the former U.S. 
attorney in Maryland, Mr. Rosenstein is well acquainted with the 
challenges that the city faces. He has prosecuted corruption charges 
against Baltimore city police officers and should recognize the 
importance of reform and effective community policing. I trust Mr. 
Rosenstein will keep his promise to support the consent decree.
  In addition to being a top-notch lawyer, Mr. Rosenstein is known for 
the professional manner in which he runs his current office. In his 
letter of support, Maryland's Attorney General Brian Frosh notes that 
Mr. Rosenstein ``inherited an office in turmoil'' when he became 
Maryland's U.S. attorney, but with a ``steady hand and superb 
management,'' created a department that is now universally respected. 
Those skills will be put to the test immediately. Mr. Rosenstein will 
assume the office of Deputy Attorney General at a tumultuous time for 
the Justice Department. His job will be to serve justice, not political 
leaders.
  As Mr. Rosenstein and I discussed, the question for him is the same 
that then-Senator Sessions posed to Sally Yates during her hearing to 
become Deputy Attorney General. Senator Sessions said: ``You have to 
watch out because people will be asking you to do things you just need 
to say no about.'' Senator Sessions then asked: ``Do you think the 
Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President if 
he asks for something that's improper?'' Like Sally Yates, Mr. 
Rosenstein said that he would be willing to put his job on the line to 
uphold the integrity of the Department of Justice.
  I believe that any investigation into the ties between the Trump 
administration and Russian interference in our elections will require 
the appointment of an independent special counsel, and I have also 
joined my fellow Senators in calling for a nonpartisan commission.
  I also made clear to Mr. Rosenstein that, if the FBI Director did, in 
fact, request that the Justice Department deny President Trump's 
unsubstantiated claims that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump 
Tower, then the Justice Department has a duty to immediately let the 
public know the truth.
  It is vitally important that the American public have faith that our 
laws apply equally to all Americans, regardless of rank or position. 
Rod Rosenstein has applied that principle faithfully during his time as 
U.S. attorney in Maryland. It is essential that he apply the same 
principle at the Department of Justice.

                          ____________________




                    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DAY

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on April 26 of each year, we celebrate 
World Intellectual Property Day and recognize the important role of 
intellectual property rights in the fabric of our society. This year, 
we take time to recognize the innovators and creators who are making 
our lives healthier, safer, and more productive through their ingenuity 
and the robust system

[[Page 5973]]

of intellectual property protections enshrined in our laws.
  The Founding Fathers recognized the value of intellectual property, 
empowering Congress ``to promote the progress of science and useful 
arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the 
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.''
  Placing this authority within Congress's enumerated powers 
underscores the weight that our Founding Fathers placed on intellectual 
property's value to the budding Nation as a means of fostering economic 
development and growth. Our success as a nation in agriculture, 
manufacturing, technology, and medicine shares a common thread of 
intellectual property rights.
  True to their predictions, our system of intellectual property has 
fostered innovation and ensured America's role as an economic engine of 
inventions that have made us healthier, safer, and more secure.
  Our system of intellectual property rights has evolved since the 
ratification of the Constitution and the passage of the Copyright Act 
of 1790, but its core mission of promoting innovation has remained 
constant.
  Our innovators and creators rely on IP protections such as patents, 
trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets to help drive and recoup 
their investments of ingenuity.
  Of course, the innovation that intellectual property helps encourage 
benefits society more broadly as well. It drives enormous economic 
activity and development, helping assure America's place as an economic 
and intellectual beacon to the world. As the U.S. Chamber's Global 
Intellectual Property Center recently pointed out, IP-intensive 
industries employ over 40 million Americans, accounting for 34.8 
percent of total U.S. gross domestic product.
  Iowans have long held intellectual property as an integral part of 
our economy. Our commitment to growth and innovation has led to $11.2 
billion in annual IP-related exports from the State, more than 667,000 
IP-related jobs, and 19.9 percent higher wages for direct IP workers 
than non-IP workers.
  As a society, we depend on innovators to make our lives better and to 
solve the challenges we face. These innovators, in turn, depend on 
different forms of intellectual property.
  The Judiciary Committee will continue to play an important role in 
protecting intellectual property and we will continue to work to 
advance innovation. This week, Senator Leahy and I reintroduced the 
Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act to encourage and reward 
companies that innovate and use patented technology to address 
humanitarian needs. This legislation improves the incentives for small 
businesses to participate in the program, by ensuring that the prize--a 
certificate for expedited processing of certain matters at the USPTO--
can be transferable to third parties.
  Yesterday, we held a hearing with witnesses from U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement and industry innovators who described the central 
role that intellectual property has played in allowing their businesses 
to grow and innovate. We also heard about some of the enforcement 
challenges that those in IP-intensive industries face as they seek to 
protect their intellectual property.
  As a cochair of the Congressional Trademark Caucus, which we just 
relaunched this week, I recognize the value of trademarks and their 
impact on society and the economy, as well as how counterfeiting can 
seriously impact consumer health and safety. Counterfeiting of goods 
presents a worldwide problem with enormous health and economic impacts, 
costing the global economy over 2.5 million jobs per year, while 
draining tax revenue and hurting the ability of American companies to 
compete in foreign markets.
  Similarly, trade secret theft is an increasingly serious problem. A 
report by the IP Commission found that annual losses due to trade 
secret theft are over $300 billion and is the cause of an estimated 
loss of 2.1 million American jobs. That is why we passed into law the 
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. This important legislation brings 
needed uniformity to trade secret law and provides more certainty to 
the innovators who rely on trade secrets to develop novel solutions to 
important problems that face us as a nation.
  Intellectual property is a key driver of innovation and fundamental 
building block of our modern economy. This World IP Day, as we 
recognize the positive impacts IP has on innovation, let us continue to 
find ways to work together to ensure its protection against 
infringement and maintain the United States enduring position as the 
most innovative and creative country in the world.

                          ____________________




                        TRIBUTE TO MARK SCHLEFER

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate and honor a 
Vermont resident for his outstanding commitment to ensuring 
transparency between the Federal Government and the American public. 
Mark Schlefer of Putney, VT, played an integral role in the creation of 
the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, that came into effect in 1967. 
Since its incorporation, FOIA has given the American people the right 
to request to access records from any Federal agency and has required 
agencies to post certain categories of information and frequently 
requested records online.
  Mr. Schlefer was inspired to join the legal group that drafted FOIA 
after working with a shipping client, Pacific Far East Line, which was 
denied tariff documentation to stop at the Mariana Islands by the 
Federal Maritime Commission. Mr. Schlefer was upset to find that the 
Federal Maritime Commission was not required to provide an explanation 
of the justification behind the rejection.
  Along with two other lawyers who came across similar situations with 
government agencies, Mr. Schlefer helped to draft the legislation for 
FOIA. After years of working on the bill and convincing both Members of 
the House and the Senate to support the legislation, it was signed into 
law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966.
  FOIA helped pave the way for greater government transparency. 
Increased transparency restores faith in governance by holding 
government officials accountable to the American people. A truly 
transparent government roots out systemic waste, fraud, and abuse. It 
is clear that we need to maintain the transparency and accountability 
of government to the people it is meant to represent. I strongly 
believe that, as a democracy, we must strive to make our government as 
transparent as possible and that citizens should be able to obtain 
information from the government in a reasonable fashion.
  Without FOIA, much of the U.S. Government would still be closed off 
to the American people. This legislation has been an inspiration to 
other governments and has served as a model throughout the world for 
opening government information to the public. Since FOIA was enacted 
nearly 50 years ago, similar Freedom of Information laws have been 
passed in all 50 States and 93 other nations.
  Mark Schlefer has demonstrated an extraordinary level of commitment 
to ensuring the American people had access to more information 
throughout the Federal Government. Since its initial enactment, all 
three branches of the Federal Government have recognized the FOIA as a 
vital part of our democracy. I heartily applaud Mr. Schlefer for 
leading the way to a more transparent government. I have no doubt that 
his outstanding life work has had a significant and positive impact on 
people and their governments throughout the world.

                          ____________________




               TRIBUTE TO STEVE STIVERS AND BRAD WENSTRUP

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize my friend and 
colleague, Congressman Steve Stivers, and congratulate him on his 
promotion to brigadier general in the Ohio National Guard.
  Steve has served our State and our Nation in uniform for more than 
three

[[Page 5974]]

decades. When his guard unit was called up in 2005, he served our 
country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. His leadership earned him the 
Bronze Star, and his service and sacrifice earned him the honor of a 
grateful nation.
  But Steve hasn't been content to only serve in uniform--he is working 
to support his fellow soldiers in Congress. He and I have worked 
together to make sure that servicemembers who suffer traumatic brain 
injuries have their medical records given from the DOD to the VA. We 
are working to designate the new Ohio veterans Museum in Columbus as 
the National Veterans Museum.
  As persuasive as Steve is, he is nothing compared to his mother. A 
few years ago, Steve's mother, Carol, brought to my attention the need 
to preserve the Parker House--a way station on the Underground Railroad 
located in Ripley, OH. She wanted to incorporate it into the National 
Park System.
  I worked with Steve, who of course couldn't say no to his mother, and 
others in the Ohio delegation, including Joyce Beatty, to preserve this 
house where a freed slave worked and helped others find their way to 
freedom. This January, the National Park Service award $50,000 to the 
Ohio History Connection to help preserve the sites throughout Ohio that 
played critical roles in the civil rights movement, including the 
Parker House.
  Steve is not the only member of our delegation to carry on the proud 
tradition of Ohioans serving our Nation in uniform. I would also like 
to congratulate my friend Brad Wenstrup on his promotion to colonel in 
the U.S. Army Reserve.
  Brad also served a tour in Iraq as a combat surgeon. He was awarded a 
Bronze Star and a Combat Action Badge and earned the honor and 
gratitude of all Ohioans. It is not just overseas where Brad serves our 
troops. He fulfills his Reserve duties, treating our wounded soldiers 
at Walter Reed, and fights to ensure our servicemembers and veterans 
have the support they deserve on the House Armed Services Committee and 
Veterans' Affairs Committee.
  Whether it is supporting our State's civil rights heritage or 
supporting our troops, Brad and Steve have always been dedicated public 
servants for Ohio. They are both so deserving of these promotions. We 
thank them and their entire families--Steve's wife, Karen, and children 
Sarah and Sam, and Brad's wife, Monica, and son Brad, Jr.--for their 
sacrifice for our country.

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                        REMEMBERING INA M. BOON

 Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me 
today in honoring the life of Ina Boon, a beloved member of the St. 
Louis community. With her passing, Ina has left a powerful legacy of 
public service that will always be cherished, and St. Louis will not be 
the same without her.
  In addition to being a wife, a mother, and dear friend to so many, 
Ina was a fighter. Not the kind you see shuffling in rings on 
television; Ina was a special kind of warrior. Her weapons were her 
voice, her feet, and, as anyone who knew her would tell you, her 
tenacious nature. Her cause was one that is dear and relevant to every 
American--true freedom, equality, and justice for all. For decades, Ina 
fought on the front lines of the civil rights movement for justice and 
equality for all citizens in my home State of Missouri and in numerous 
other States throughout the country.
  For more than 50 years, Ina was the fearless leader who served 
tirelessly at the helm of the St. Louis NAACP Region IV branch. Whether 
she was advocating for diversity and inclusion in hiring and housing 
practices, fighting for equal access and fair treatment in healthcare 
and education, or helping young people find jobs and urging them to 
register to vote, Ina's life reveals an inspiring commitment to social 
change and progress.
  Her half-century record of service provides a clear example of how 
much good can be accomplished with a steadfast and caring spirit. At 
the same time, Ina's life shows the selfless and generous heart of a 
public servant. When times were lean at NAACP, Ina worked hard and 
faithfully while giving up her pay. Additionally, even though she was 
committed to large-scale, systemic social changes across the State and 
country, Ina was equally committed to her family and her neighbors. She 
nurtured her son, mentored young people, and remained active in her 
church, serving in various leadership positions.
  Ina recently passed away at the age of 90. She was blessed to live a 
long life and bear witness to some incredible historic moments in our 
State's history and our country's history as well. I know that Ina was 
humbled to play a role in some of these moments. With Ina's passing, we 
have lost a prolific public servant and a dynamic individual. Ina is 
survived by her son Gentry, as well as nieces, nephews, grandchildren, 
great-grandchildren, and a host of extended family members and friends.
  It may come as small comfort to them, but Ina will forever be a part 
of St. Louis history. She will always be remembered for her leadership, 
passion, and activism. Right now, many of my fellow Missourians are 
justifiably saddened by the loss of one of our local champions, but my 
hope is that Ina's legacy will inspire current and future generations 
of leaders to continue the vitally important work of perfecting our 
vibrant, diverse Union.
  I ask that the Senate join me in honoring the life and legacy of Mrs. 
Ina M. Boon.

                          ____________________




                         MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

  At 11:10 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has 
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the 
Senate:

       H.R. 455. An act to designate the United States courthouse 
     located at 501 East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as 
     the ``R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse''.
       H.R. 534. An act to require the Secretary of State to take 
     such actions as may be necessary for the United States to 
     rejoin the Bureau of International Expositions, and for other 
     purposes.
       H.R. 876. An act to reform programs of the Transportation 
     Security Administration, and for other purposes.
       H.R. 1372. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 to ensure that the needs of children are considered in 
     homeland security planning, and for other purposes.

  The message further announced that the House has agreed to the 
following concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence 
of the Senate:

       H. Con. Res. 35. Concurrent resolution authorizing the use 
     of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers 
     Memorial Service and the National Honor Guard and Pipe Band 
     Exhibition.
       H. Con. Res 36. Concurrent resolution authorizing the use 
     of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box 
     Derby.

                          ____________________




                           MEASURES REFERRED

  The following bills were read the first and the second times by 
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

       H.R. 455. An act to designate the United States courthouse 
     located at 501 East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as 
     the ``R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse''; to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       H.R. 534. An act to require the Secretary of State to take 
     such actions as may be necessary for the United States to 
     rejoin the Bureau of International Expositions, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
       H.R. 876. An act to reform programs of the Transportation 
     Security Administration, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       H.R. 1372. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 to ensure that the needs of children are considered in 
     homeland security planning, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

                          ____________________




                   EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

  The following communications were laid before the Senate, together 
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as 
indicated:

       EC-1386. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division,

[[Page 5975]]

     Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to 
     law, the report of a rule entitled ``Bacillus Thuringiensis 
     (mCry51Aa2) Protein in or on Cotton; Temporary Exemption from 
     the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9957-23) received 
     during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the 
     President of the Senate on April 11, 2017; to the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-1387. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Bacillus simplex strain BU288; Exemption from the 
     Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No. 9960-61) received 
     during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the 
     President of the Senate on April 19, 2017; to the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-1388. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Pyroxasulfone; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 
     9959-25) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-1389. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Pyriofenone; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9953-
     96) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office 
     of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-1390. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Deltamethrin; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 
     9959-54) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 17, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-1391. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Benzobicyclon; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 
     9961-02) received in the Office of the President of the 
     Senate on April 25, 2017; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry.
       EC-1392. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Tioxazafen; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9955-
     97) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on 
     April 25, 2017; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
     and Forestry.
       EC-1393. A communication from the Secretary of Defense, 
     transmitting a report on the approved retirement of 
     Lieutenant General Robert S. Ferrell, United States Army, and 
     his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the 
     retired list; to the Committee on Armed Services.
       EC-1394. A communication from the Secretary of Defense, 
     transmitting a report on the approved retirement of 
     Lieutenant General Michael E. Williamson, United States Army, 
     and his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the 
     retired list; to the Committee on Armed Services.
       EC-1395. A communication from the Secretary of Defense, 
     transmitting a report on the approved retirement of 
     Lieutenant General Patrick J. Donahue II, United States Army, 
     and his advancement to the grade of lieutenant general on the 
     retired list; to the Committee on Armed Services.
       EC-1396. A communication from the Assistant General 
     Counsel, General Law, Ethics, and Regulation, Department of 
     the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report 
     relative to a vacancy in the position of Under Secretary 
     (Terrorism and Financial Intelligence), Department of the 
     Treasury, received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 19, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-1397. A communication from the Assistant General 
     Counsel, General Law, Ethics, and Regulation, Department of 
     the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report 
     relative to a vacancy in the position of Assistant Secretary 
     (International Markets and Development), Department of the 
     Treasury, received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 19, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-1398. A communication from the Deputy General Counsel 
     for Operations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, three (3) reports relative to 
     vacancies in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 19, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-1399. A communication from the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic 
     report on the national emergency with respect to the Central 
     African Republic that was declared in Executive Order 13667 
     of May 12, 2014; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
       EC-1400. A communication from the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic 
     report on the national emergency with respect to Yemen that 
     was originally declared in Executive Order 13611 on May 16, 
     2012; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs.
       EC-1401. A communication from the General Counsel of the 
     National Credit Union Administration, transmitting, pursuant 
     to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Civil Monetary 
     Penalty Inflation Adjustment'' (RIN3133-AE67) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on April 20, 2017; to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-1402. A communication from the Minority Whip of the 
     Puerto Rico House of Representatives, transmitting, pursuant 
     to law, a report relative to the Puerto Rico Oversight, 
     Management and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) and its 
     expenditures; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources.
       EC-1403. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; General Permit to 
     Limit Potential to Emit from Major Stationary Sources of Air 
     Pollution'' (FRL No. 9952-93-Region 1) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on April 19, 2017; to the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works.
       EC-1404. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Promulgation of State Implementation Plan 
     Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead, 
     2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 National 
     Ambient Air Quality Standards; Wyoming'' (FRL No. 9958-35-
     Region 8) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 19, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       EC-1405. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Air Plan Approval; CT; Approval of Single Source 
     Orders'' (FRL No. 9958-37-Region 1) received in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 25, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       EC-1406. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Air Plan Approval; ME; Emission Statement 
     Reporting'' (FRL No. 9961-42-Region 1) received in the Office 
     of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       EC-1407. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Repeal of NOx 
     Budget Trading Program'' (FRL No. 9961-57-Region 1) received 
     in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 
     2017; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       EC-1408. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Air Plan Approval; TN: Non-interference 
     Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement 
     in Middle Tennessee'' (FRL No. 9961-48-Region 4) received in 
     the Office of the President of the Senate on April 25, 2017; 
     to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       EC-1409. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
     Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Revision of 
     Regulations for Sulfur Content of Fuel Oil'' (FRL No. 9961-
     31-Region 3) received in the Office of the President of the 
     Senate on April 25, 2017; to the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works.
       EC-1410. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans; 
     State of Maryland; Control of Emissions from Existing 
     Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incineration Units'' (FRL 
     No. 9961-37-Region 3) received in the Office of the President 
     of the Senate on April 25, 2017; to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works.
       EC-1411. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality 
     Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants; State of 
     Delaware, District of Columbia, and Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania, City of Philadelphia; Control of Emissions from 
     Existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator 
     Units'' (FRL

[[Page 5976]]

     No. 9961-23-Region 3) received in the Office of the President 
     of the Senate on April 25, 2017; to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works.
       EC-1412. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Approval of Arizona Air Plan Revisions, Arizona 
     Department of Environmental Quality and Pinal County Air 
     Quality Control District'' (FRL No. 9961-36-Region 9) 
     received in the Office of the President of the Senate on 
     April 25, 2017; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works.
       EC-1413. A communication from the Director of the 
     Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Butte 
     County Air Quality Management District'' (FRL No. 9957-15-
     Region 9) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 11, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
       EC-1414. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Determination of Housing Cost Amounts 
     Eligible for Exclusion or Deduction for 2017'' (Notice 2017-
     21) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on 
     April 24, 2017; to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-1415. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Examination of Returns and Claims for 
     Refund, Credit, or Abatement; Determination of Correct Tax 
     Liability'' (Rev. Proc. 2017-26) received in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 24, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
       EC-1416. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Applicable Federal Rates--February 2017'' 
     (Rev. Rul. 2017-4) received during adjournment of the Senate 
     in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 19, 
     2017; to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-1417. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Application of Modified Carryover Basis to 
     General Basis Rules'' ((RIN1545-BK09) (TD 9811)) received 
     during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the 
     President of the Senate on April 19, 2017; to the Committee 
     on Finance.
       EC-1418. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Transfers of Certain Property by U.S. 
     Persons to Partnerships with Related Foreign Partners'' 
     ((RIN1545-BM95) (TD 9814)) received during adjournment of the 
     Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on April 
     19, 2017; to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-1419. A communication from the President of the United 
     States to the President Pro Tempore of the United States 
     Senate, transmitting, consistent with the War Powers Act, a 
     report relative to targeted missile strikes on the Shayrat 
     military airfield in Syria, received during adjournment of 
     the Senate on April 8, 2017; to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations.
       EC-1420. A communication from the Assistant Legal Adviser 
     for Treaty Affairs, Department of State, transmitting, 
     pursuant to the Case-Zablocki Act, 1 U.S.C. 112b, as amended, 
     the report of the texts and background statements of 
     international agreements, other than treaties (List 2017-
     0069-2017-0076); to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
       EC-1421. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Rules for Certain Reserves'' (Rev. Rul. 
     2017-3) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 19, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Finance.
       EC-1422. A communication from the Assistant General Counsel 
     for Regulatory Services, Office of General Counsel, 
     Department of Education, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     report of a rule entitled ``Title I--Improving the Academic 
     Achievement of the Disadvantaged (Subpart C--Migrant 
     Education Program)'' (RIN1810-AA99) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions.
       EC-1423. A communication from the Secretary of Education, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation'' 
     (RIN1810-AA16) received in the Office of the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions.
       EC-1424. A communication from the Director of Regulations 
     and Policy Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 
     Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Requirements 
     to Submit Prior Notice of Imported Food; Technical 
     Amendments'' (Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0011) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on March 31, 2017; to the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions.
       EC-1425. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator, 
     Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of 
     Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     report of a rule entitled ``Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act; Market Stabilization'' ((RIN0938-AT14) (CMS-9929-
     F)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office 
     of the President of the Senate on April 18, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
       EC-1426. A communication from the Acting Director, Office 
     of Economic Impact and Diversity, Department of Energy, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department's amended 
     fiscal year 2016 report relative to the Notification and 
     Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 
     2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-1427. A communication from the Associate General Counsel 
     for General Law, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to a vacancy 
     in the position of Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland 
     Security, received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 19, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-1428. A communication from the Executive Director, 
     Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, Central Intelligence 
     Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Agency's fiscal 
     year 2016 annual report relative to the Notification and 
     Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 
     2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-1429. A communication from the Secretary of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Department 
     of Transportation's fiscal year 2016 annual report relative 
     to the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination 
     and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act); to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-1430. A communication from the Census Bureau Federal 
     Register Liaison Officer, Census Bureau, Department of 
     Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR): Clarification on 
     Filing Requirements'' (RIN0607-AA55) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on April 19, 2017; to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-1431. A communication from the Acting Chief Privacy 
     Officer, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, a report entitled ``2016 Data Mining Report 
     to Congress''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs.
       EC-1432. A communication from the Acting Assistant Attorney 
     General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of 
     Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report on 
     the Department's activities during calendar year 2015 
     relative to prison rape abatement; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
       EC-1433. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0245)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1434. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2016-8851)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1435. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0245)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1436. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2016-8184)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1437. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal

[[Page 5977]]

     Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes'' 
     ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2016-9299)) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1438. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2016-6897)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1439. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream 
     Aerospace Corporation Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 
     FAA-2014-0651)) received during adjournment of the Senate in 
     the Office of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1440. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC 
     Models Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2016-
     9531)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1441. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; American Champion 
     Aircraft Corp.'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0283)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1442. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. 
     Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-2014-0059)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1443. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Meggitt (Troy), 
     Inc. Combustion Heaters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-
     2014-0603)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1444. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class C Airspace; Little Rock, 
     AR'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2017-0233)) received 
     during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the 
     President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1445. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Establishment of Class E Airspace; 
     Louisville, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2015-0581)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1446. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class E Airspace; Monongahela, 
     PA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2016-9102)) received 
     during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the 
     President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1447. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; 
     Savannah, GA'' ((RIN2120-AA66) (Docket No. FAA-2016-9101)) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1448. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, 
     and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; 
     Miscellaneous Amendments (1); Amdt. No. 3740'' (RIN2120-AA65) 
     received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of 
     the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1449. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, 
     and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; 
     Miscellaneous Amendments (69); Amdt. No. 3739'' (RIN2120-
     AA65) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office 
     of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1450. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, 
     and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; 
     Miscellaneous Amendments (36); Amdt. No. 3741'' (RIN2120-
     AA65) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office 
     of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1451. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream 
     Aerospace Corporation Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 
     FAA-2016-9385)) received in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on April 25, 2017; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1452. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; General Electric 
     Company Turbofan Engines'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-
     2013-0879)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1453. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft 
     Corporation Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-
     2015-7095)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1454. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter 
     Textron Canada Helicopters'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. FAA-
     2017-0189)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the 
     Office of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; to 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1455. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of 
     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Helicopters Deutschland GmbH'' ((RIN2120-AA64) (Docket No. 
     FAA-2016-3257)) received during adjournment of the Senate in 
     the Office of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1456. A communication from the Deputy Under Secretary 
     for Operations performing the duties of Under Secretary of 
     Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of Commerce, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chesapeake Bay Office 
     Biennial Report to Congress; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1457. A communication from the Trial Attorney, Federal 
     Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 
     Adjustment Act Improvements Act for a Violation of a Federal 
     Railroad Safety Law, Federal Railroad Administration Safety 
     Regulation or Order, or the Hazardous Material Transportation 
     Laws or Regulations, Orders, Special Permits, and Approvals 
     Issued Under Those Laws'' (RIN2130-AC59) received during 
     adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of 
     the Senate on April 21, 2017; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1458. A communication from the Management and Program 
     Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of

[[Page 5978]]

     Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``2017 Revisions to the Civil Penalty 
     Inflation Adjustment Tables'' ((RIN2120-AK90) (Docket No. 
     FAA-2016-7004)) received during adjournment of the Senate in 
     the Office of the President of the Senate on April 21, 2017; 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1459. A communication from the Assistant General 
     Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product 
     Safety Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report 
     of a rule entitled ``Safety Standard for Infant Bath Tubs'' 
     (CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2015-0019) received during adjournment 
     of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on 
     April 19, 2017; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
       EC-1460. A communication from the Deputy Chief Financial 
     Officer, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 
     Information Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Schedule of 
     Fees for Access to NOAA Environmental Data, Information, and 
     Related Products and Services'' (RIN0648-BG39) received in 
     the Office of the President of the Senate on April 24, 2017; 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-1461. A communication from the Acting Chief of 
     Technology Transfer Office, John H. Glenn Research Center, 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting, 
     a report relative to the Center's Technology Transfer Office; 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

                          ____________________




              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. Coons):
       S. 942. A bill to require a plan to combat international 
     travel by terrorists and foreign fighters, accelerate the 
     transfer of certain border security systems to foreign 
     partner governments, establish minimum international border 
     security standards, authorize the suspension of foreign 
     assistance to countries not making significant efforts to 
     comply with such minimum standards, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
           By Ms. HEITKAMP (for herself, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. 
             Daines):
       S. 943. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
     conduct an accurate comprehensive student count for the 
     purposes of calculating formula allocations for programs 
     under the Johnson-O'Malley Act, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on Indian Affairs.
           By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
             Roberts, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. 
             Ernst, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Thune, Mr. Udall, Mr. 
             Heinrich, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, 
             Mr. Donnelly, and Mrs. Murray):
       S. 944. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to reform and extend the incentives for biodiesel; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Peters):
       S. 945. A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and 
     Technical Education Act of 2006 to authorize funds to 
     identify and eliminate excessive occupational licensure; to 
     the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
             Cornyn, Mr. Lee, Mr. Tillis, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
             Tester, and Mr. Manchin):
       S. 946. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     to hire additional Veterans Justice Outreach Specialists to 
     provide treatment court services to justice-involved 
     veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs.
           By Ms. HASSAN (for herself, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
             Blumenthal, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Franken, Mr. Van 
             Hollen, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Menendez):
       S. 947. A bill to protect passengers on flights in air 
     transportation from being denied boarding involuntarily, and 
     for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation.
           By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, 
             Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Franken, Mr. 
             Heinrich, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
             Murphy, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schatz, Ms. 
             Stabenow, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Van Hollen, 
             and Mr. Menendez):
       S. 948. A bill to designate as wilderness certain Federal 
     portions of the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and 
     the Great Basin Deserts in the State of Utah for the benefit 
     of present and future generations of people in the United 
     States; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Ms. Cantwell):
       S. 949. A bill to require the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management to create a classification that more 
     accurately reflects the vital role of wildland firefighters; 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs.
           By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Ms. Cantwell):
       S. 950. A bill to correct problems pertaining to human 
     resources for career and volunteer personnel engaged in 
     wildland fire and structure fire; to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
           By Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Hatch, 
             and Mr. Manchin):
       S. 951. A bill to reform the process by which Federal 
     agencies analyze and formulate new regulations and guidance 
     documents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
           By Ms. WARREN (for herself and Mr. Rubio):
       S. 952. A bill to increase the role of the financial 
     industry in combating human trafficking; to the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
           By Mr. HEINRICH:
       S. 953. A bill to require the United States Secret Service 
     to make certain White House visitor logs available to the 
     public, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.

                          ____________________




            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

  The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were 
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

           By Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. 
             Shaheen, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Boozman, Mr. 
             Gardner, and Mr. Udall):
       S. Con. Res. 13. A concurrent resolution calling upon the 
     President to issue a proclamation recognizing the abiding 
     importance of the Helsinki Final Act and its relevance to the 
     national security of the United States; to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations.

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 236

  At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Montana 
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 236, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform taxation of alcoholic 
beverages.


                                 S. 372

  At the request of Mr. Portman, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 372, a bill to amend the Tariff 
Act of 1930 to ensure that merchandise arriving through the mail shall 
be subject to review by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and to 
require the provision of advance electronic information on shipments of 
mail to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and for other purposes.


                                 S. 384

  At the request of Mr. Blunt, the names of the Senator from Michigan 
(Ms. Stabenow) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 384, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
to permanently extend the new markets tax credit, and for other 
purposes.


                                 S. 445

  At the request of Mr. Cardin, the names of the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Blumenthal) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Peters) 
were added as cosponsors of S. 445, a bill to amend title XVIII of the 
Social Security Act to ensure more timely access to home health 
services for Medicare beneficiaries under the Medicare program.


                                 S. 487

  At the request of Mr. Crapo, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms. 
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 487, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an exclusion for 
assistance provided to participants in certain veterinary student loan 
repayment or forgiveness programs.


                                 S. 497

  At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Rounds) was added as a cosponsor of S. 497, a bill to amend 
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for Medicare coverage 
of certain lymphedema compression treatment items as items of durable 
medical equipment.


                                 S. 512

  At the request of Mr. Barrasso, the name of the Senator from Michigan

[[Page 5979]]

(Mr. Peters) was added as a cosponsor of S. 512, a bill to modernize 
the regulation of nuclear energy.


                                 S. 534

  At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from Alaska 
(Mr. Sullivan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 534, a bill to prevent 
the sexual abuse of minors and amateur athletes by requiring the prompt 
reporting of sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities, and for other 
purposes.


                                 S. 591

  At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 591, a bill to 
expand eligibility for the program of comprehensive assistance for 
family caregivers of the Department of Veterans Affairs, to expand 
benefits available to participants under such program, to enhance 
special compensation for members of the uniformed services who require 
assistance in everyday life, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 678

  At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Rounds) was added as a cosponsor of S. 678, a bill to 
declare English as the official language of the United States, to 
establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to 
avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the 
United States, pursuant to Congress' powers to provide for the general 
welfare of the United States and to establish a uniform rule of 
naturalization under article I, section 8, of the Constitution.


                                 S. 720

  At the request of Mr. Portman, the name of the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) was added as a cosponsor of S. 720, a bill to 
amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 to include in the 
prohibitions on boycotts against allies of the United States boycotts 
fostered by international governmental organizations against Israel and 
to direct the Export-Import Bank of the United States to oppose 
boycotts against Israel, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 722

  At the request of Mr. Corker, the name of the Senator from Washington 
(Ms. Cantwell) was withdrawn as a cosponsor of S. 722, a bill to impose 
sanctions with respect to Iran in relation to Iran's ballistic missile 
program, support for acts of international terrorism, and violations of 
human rights, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 819

  At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Michigan 
(Mr. Peters) was added as a cosponsor of S. 819, a bill to amend the 
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to 
victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, 
and for other purposes.


                                 S. 842

  At the request of Mr. Booker, the name of the Senator from Vermont 
(Mr. Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 842, a bill to prohibit 
Federal agencies and Federal contractors from requesting that an 
applicant for employment disclose criminal history record information 
before the applicant has received a conditional offer, and for other 
purposes.


                                 S. 867

  At the request of Mr. Donnelly, the names of the Senator from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 867, a bill to provide support for law enforcement 
agency efforts to protect the mental health and well-being of law 
enforcement officers, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 926

  At the request of Mrs. Ernst, the names of the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Nelson), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and the Senator 
from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) were added as cosponsors of S. 926, a bill 
to authorize the Global War on Terror Memorial Foundation to establish 
the National Global War on Terrorism Memorial as a commemorative work 
in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Roberts, Ms. 
        Hirono, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Ernst, Ms. Heitkamp, 
        Mr. Thune, Mr. Udall, Mr. Heinrich, Mrs. Shaheen, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Franken, Mr. Donnelly, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 944. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform 
and extend the incentives for biodiesel; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic 
biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels. 
Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. 
Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and 
creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security 
by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be 
produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, 
soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats.
  I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I 
am glad to be introducing today the American Renewable Fuel and Job 
Creation Act of 2017, which will ensure the continued success. I 
appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also 
appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Hirono, Blunt, Whitehouse, 
Ernst, Heitkamp, Thune, Udall, Heinrich, Shaheen, Klobuchar, Franken, 
Donnelly, and Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel 
blender's credit to a domestic production credit starting this year and 
extend the credit through 2020.
  Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was 
chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this incentive 
and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant 
benefits to the nation.
  Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating the mixture credit be 
modified to a producer credit since 2009. Converting to a producer 
credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be 
difficult to administer because the blending of the fuel can occur at 
many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it 
difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims 
the incentive. It has been susceptible to abuse because of this.
  A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are 
incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, 
rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. A credit for domestic 
production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic 
industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported 
biofuels. Since 2014, we have seen imports increase from 510 million 
gallons to about 1 billion gallons in 2016, and already in the first 
quarter of 2017 imports are 10 percent higher than they were last year 
at this time.
  We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. 
By restricting the credit to domestic production, we will also save 
taxpayer money. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated a 
similar amendment adopted in the Finance Committee in 2015 would have 
reduced the cost of the extension by $90 million for 2016 alone.
  Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on 
the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the 
blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel 
industry is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of 
capacity, which does not even account for idled capacity. The fact is, 
the domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to 
affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers.
  The current biodiesel credit expired at the end of 2016. Adoption of 
the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017 should be 
strongly considered as part of tax reform efforts currently underway. 
Absent tax reform, Congress should include it as part of any tax 
legislation extending expired tax provisions.

[[Page 5980]]

  Modifying the current blenders credit to a producers credit will 
ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing 
investment in domestic biodiesel production and promoting American 
jobs. Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. 
taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel 
imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of 
American biodiesel and this commonsense, cost reduction reform.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Peters):
  S. 945. A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
Education Act of 2006 to authorize funds to identify and eliminate 
excessive occupational licensure; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 945

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``New Hope and Opportunity 
     through the Power of Employment Act'' or the ``New HOPE 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. STATE LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES.

       Section 124(c) of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
     Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2344(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (16)(B), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (17), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(18) consulting and coordinating with other State 
     agencies for the identification, consolidation, or 
     elimination of licenses or certifications which pose an 
     unnecessary barrier to entry for aspiring workers and provide 
     limited consumer protection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
        Lee, Mr. Tillis, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Tester, and Mr. Manchin):
  S. 946. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to hire 
additional Veterans Justice Outreach Specialists to provide treatment 
court services to justice-involved veterans, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, Arizona is home to more than a half million 
veterans. They have served in every conflict from World War II to 
present-day operations in the Middle East. Nothing makes me prouder 
than to shake the hand of one of these veterans and to call them an 
Arizonan.
  Fortunately, many of these veterans have the support of friends and 
family, as well as their fellow veterans with whom they served, but far 
too many who have served our country lack a support system that can 
help them successfully make the transition back to civilian life.
  For those who have post-traumatic stress or traumatic brain injury, 
this could be particularly difficult. Studies have shown that veterans 
often do not seek out medical health treatment due to concerns about 
stigma, negative career prospects, lack of awareness, or logistical 
challenges in accessing care. For those who go without treatment, it 
can lead to substance abuse and, in some cases, run-ins with the law.
  While there is no justification for criminal behavior, it is 
important to recognize when certain actions may be symptomatic of the 
harrowing experiences a veteran has endured during years of service. 
This is something the criminal justice system often fails to deal with. 
By not providing treatment that actually addresses a veteran's 
underlying service-connected issues, our criminal justice system 
sometimes creates a vicious cycle. It overcriminalizes service-
connected mental illness, undertreats incarcerated veterans, and 
increases recidivism.
  To address the problem, the VA created the Veterans Justice Outreach 
Program in 2009. The program was established to remove veterans from 
the regular criminal justice process and to provide specially tailored 
treatments to address many of these underlying issues. These veterans 
treatment courts have a proven record of preventing initial 
incarceration and reducing recidivism.
  The lifeblood of the program is the veterans justice outreach 
specialists, VJO specialists, who link veterans to available court 
services. These outreach specialists identify veterans in jails and 
local courts, they assess their health status, and they help them 
develop the rehabilitation treatment program specific to each of their 
needs.
  I recently had the opportunity to observe the veterans docket and 
meet with some of these dedicated specialists while visiting the Mesa 
Municipal Court earlier this month. Let me tell you, there is no 
substitute for seeing this firsthand. Even though it is a courtroom 
setting, there is a comradery and collaboration that you don't see in 
traditional courtroom proceedings. I was amazed at how many 
organizations there are to help these veterans--to help them 
successfully transition and help them with treatment.
  The collaboration I am talking about comes from having a judge and 
hard-working staff who have served in the military themselves. They 
understand the hardship of multiple deployments for servicemembers and 
their families. They understand the mental and physical tolls of 
combat. They understand that the transition back to civilian life can 
mark the beginning of a new battle for veterans.
  The program has experienced remarkable success. The unfortunate 
reality is that the VA doesn't have enough outreach specialists to 
ensure access to already available treatment for justice-involved 
veterans. Demand for VJO specialists is outpacing the program's ability 
to serve eligible veterans. This means future veterans treatment courts 
can't be established, existing courts will go understaffed, and 
veterans will go unserved. That is not right.
  That is why today I am introducing the Veterans Treatment Court 
Improvement Act to ensure our veterans receive swift and appropriate 
access to justice. This legislation will provide 50 additional VJO 
specialists for veterans treatment courts nationwide. By increasing the 
number of dedicated specialists at these facilities, Congress can 
ensure that more veterans have access to the treatments they have 
earned with their service. This is bipartisan legislation. I will work 
to inform my colleagues about the need for this program and additional 
VJOs in the coming weeks and months.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bennet, Mr. 
        Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Franken, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Leahy, 
        Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Peters, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
        Schatz, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Warren, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Van 
        Hollen, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 948. A bill to designate as wilderness certain Federal portions of 
the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin 
Deserts in the State of Utah for the benefit of present and future 
generations of people in the United States; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 948

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``America's 
     Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2017''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

                TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

Sec. 101. Great Basin Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 102. Grand Staircase-Escalante Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 103. Moab-La Sal Canyons Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 104. Henry Mountains Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 105. Glen Canyon Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 106. San Juan-Anasazi Wilderness Areas.

[[Page 5981]]

Sec. 107. Canyonlands Basin Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 108. San Rafael Swell Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 109. Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin Wilderness Areas.

                  TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. General provisions.
Sec. 202. Administration.
Sec. 203. State school trust land within wilderness areas.
Sec. 204. Water.
Sec. 205. Roads.
Sec. 206. Livestock.
Sec. 207. Fish and wildlife.
Sec. 208. Management of newly acquired land.
Sec. 209. Withdrawal.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Utah.

                TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

     SEC. 101. GREAT BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Great Basin region of western Utah is comprised of 
     starkly beautiful mountain ranges that rise as islands from 
     the desert floor;
       (2) the Wah Wah Mountains in the Great Basin region are 
     arid and austere, with massive cliff faces and leathery 
     slopes speckled with pinon and juniper;
       (3) the Pilot Range and Stansbury Mountains in the Great 
     Basin region are high enough to draw moisture from passing 
     clouds and support ecosystems found nowhere else on earth;
       (4) from bristlecone pine, the world's oldest living 
     organism, to newly flowered mountain meadows, mountains of 
     the Great Basin region are islands of nature that--
       (A) support remarkable biological diversity; and
       (B) provide opportunities to experience the colossal 
     silence of the Great Basin; and
       (5) the Great Basin region of western Utah should be 
     protected and managed to ensure the preservation of the 
     natural conditions of the region.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Antelope Range (approximately 17,000 acres).
       (2) Barn Hills (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (3) Black Hills (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (4) Bullgrass Knoll (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (5) Burbank Hills/Tunnel Spring (approximately 92,000 
     acres).
       (6) Conger Mountains (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (7) Crater Bench (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (8) Crater and Silver Island Mountains (approximately 
     121,000 acres).
       (9) Cricket Mountains Cluster (approximately 62,000 acres).
       (10) Deep Creek Mountains (approximately 126,000 acres).
       (11) Drum Mountains (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (12) Dugway Mountains (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (13) Essex Canyon (approximately 1,300 acres).
       (14) Fish Springs Range (approximately 64,000 acres).
       (15) Granite Peak (approximately 19,000 acres).
       (16) Grassy Mountains (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (17) Grouse Creek Mountains (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (18) House Range (approximately 201,000 acres).
       (19) Keg Mountains (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (20) Kern Mountains (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (21) King Top (approximately 110,000 acres).
       (22) Ledger Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (23) Little Goose Creek (approximately 1,200 acres).
       (24) Middle/Granite Mountains (approximately 80,000 acres).
       (25) Mount Escalante (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (26) Mountain Home Range (approximately 90,000 acres).
       (27) Newfoundland Mountains (approximately 22,000 acres).
       (28) Ochre Mountain (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (29) Oquirrh Mountains (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (30) Painted Rock Mountain (approximately 26,000 acres).
       (31) Paradise/Steamboat Mountains (approximately 144,000 
     acres).
       (32) Pilot Range (approximately 45,000 acres).
       (33) Red Tops (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (34) Rockwell-Little Sahara (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (35) San Francisco Mountains (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (36) Sand Ridge (approximately 73,000 acres).
       (37) Simpson Mountains (approximately 42,000 acres).
       (38) Snake Valley (approximately 100,000 acres).
       (39) Spring Creek Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
       (40) Stansbury Island (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (41) Stansbury Mountains (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (42) Thomas Range (approximately 36,000 acres).
       (43) Tule Valley (approximately 159,000 acres).
       (44) Wah Wah Mountains (approximately 167,000 acres).
       (45) Wasatch/Sevier Plateaus (approximately 29,000 acres).
       (46) White Rock Range (approximately 5,200 acres).

     SEC. 102. GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Grand Staircase Area.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the area known as the Grand Staircase rises more than 
     6,000 feet in a series of great cliffs and plateaus from the 
     depths of the Grand Canyon to the forested rim of Bryce 
     Canyon;
       (B) the Grand Staircase--
       (i) spans 6 major life zones, from the lower Sonoran Desert 
     to the alpine forest; and
       (ii) encompasses geologic formations that display 
     3,000,000,000 years of Earth's history;
       (C) land managed by the Secretary lines the intricate 
     canyon system of the Paria River and forms a vital natural 
     corridor connection to the deserts and forests of those 
     national parks;
       (D) land described in paragraph (2) (other than East of 
     Bryce, Upper Kanab Creek, Moquith Mountain, Bunting Point, 
     and Vermillion Cliffs) is located within the Grand Staircase-
     Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) the Grand Staircase in Utah should be protected and 
     managed as a wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Bryce View (approximately 4,500 acres).
       (B) Bunting Point (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (C) Canaan Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres in Kane 
     County).
       (D) Canaan Peak Slopes (approximately 2,300 acres).
       (E) East of Bryce (approximately 750 acres).
       (F) Glass Eye Canyon (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (G) Ladder Canyon (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (H) Moquith Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (I) Nephi Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (J) Orderville Canyon (approximately 9,200 acres).
       (K) Paria-Hackberry (approximately 188,000 acres).
       (L) Paria Wilderness Expansion (approximately 3,300 acres).
       (M) Parunuweap Canyon (approximately 43,000 acres).
       (N) Pine Hollow (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (O) Slopes of Bryce (approximately 2,600 acres).
       (P) Timber Mountain (approximately 51,000 acres).
       (Q) Upper Kanab Creek (approximately 49,000 acres).
       (R) Vermillion Cliffs (approximately 26,000 acres).
       (S) Willis Creek (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (b) Kaiparowits Plateau.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the Kaiparowits Plateau east of the Paria River is one 
     of the most rugged and isolated wilderness regions in the 
     United States;
       (B) the Kaiparowits Plateau, a windswept land of harsh 
     beauty, contains distant vistas and a remarkable variety of 
     plant and animal species;
       (C) ancient forests, an abundance of big game animals, and 
     22 species of raptors thrive undisturbed on the grassland 
     mesa tops of the Kaiparowits Plateau;
       (D) each of the areas described in paragraph (2) (other 
     than Heaps Canyon, Little Valley, and Wide Hollow) is located 
     within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) the Kaiparowits Plateau should be protected and managed 
     as a wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Andalex Not (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (B) The Blues (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (C) Box Canyon (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (D) Burning Hills (approximately 80,000 acres).
       (E) Carcass Canyon (approximately 83,000 acres).
       (F) The Cockscomb (approximately 11,000 acres).

[[Page 5982]]

       (G) Fiftymile Bench (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (H) Fiftymile Mountain (approximately 203,000 acres).
       (I) Heaps Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
       (J) Horse Spring Canyon (approximately 31,000 acres).
       (K) Kodachrome Headlands (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (L) Little Valley Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
       (M) Mud Spring Canyon (approximately 65,000 acres).
       (N) Nipple Bench (approximately 32,000 acres).
       (O) Paradise Canyon-Wahweap (approximately 262,000 acres).
       (P) Rock Cove (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (Q) Warm Creek (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (R) Wide Hollow (approximately 6,800 acres).
       (c) Escalante Canyons.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) glens and coves carved in massive sandstone cliffs, 
     spring-watered hanging gardens, and the silence of ancient 
     Anasazi ruins are examples of the unique features that entice 
     hikers, campers, and sightseers from around the world to 
     Escalante Canyon;
       (B) Escalante Canyon links the spruce fir forests of the 
     11,000-foot Aquarius Plateau with winding slickrock canyons 
     that flow into Glen Canyon;
       (C) Escalante Canyon, one of Utah's most popular natural 
     areas, contains critical habitat for deer, elk, and wild 
     bighorn sheep that also enhances the scenic integrity of the 
     area;
       (D) each of the areas described in paragraph (2) is located 
     within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) Escalante Canyon should be protected and managed as a 
     wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Brinkerhof Flats (approximately 3,000 acres).
       (B) Colt Mesa (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (C) Death Hollow (approximately 49,000 acres).
       (D) Forty Mile Gulch (approximately 6,600 acres).
       (E) Hurricane Wash (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (F) Lampstand (approximately 7,900 acres).
       (G) Muley Twist Flank (approximately 3,600 acres).
       (H) North Escalante Canyons (approximately 176,000 acres).
       (I) Pioneer Mesa (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (J) Scorpion (approximately 53,000 acres).
       (K) Sooner Bench (approximately 390 acres).
       (L) Steep Creek (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (M) Studhorse Peaks (approximately 24,000 acres).

     SEC. 103. MOAB-LA SAL CANYONS WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the canyons surrounding the La Sal Mountains and the 
     town of Moab offer a variety of extraordinary landscapes;
       (2) outstanding examples of natural formations and 
     landscapes in the Moab-La Sal area include the huge sandstone 
     fins of Behind the Rocks, the mysterious Fisher Towers, and 
     the whitewater rapids of Westwater Canyon; and
       (3) the Moab-La Sal area should be protected and managed as 
     a wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Arches Adjacent (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (2) Beaver Creek (approximately 41,000 acres).
       (3) Behind the Rocks and Hunters Canyon (approximately 
     22,000 acres).
       (4) Big Triangle (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (5) Coyote Wash (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (6) Dome Plateau-Professor Valley (approximately 35,000 
     acres).
       (7) Fisher Towers (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (8) Goldbar Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (9) Granite Creek (approximately 5,000 acres).
       (10) Mary Jane Canyon (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (11) Mill Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (12) Porcupine Rim and Morning Glory (approximately 20,000 
     acres).
       (13) Renegade Point (approximately 6,600 acres).
       (14) Westwater Canyon (approximately 37,000 acres).
       (15) Yellow Bird (approximately 4,200 acres).

     SEC. 104. HENRY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Henry Mountain Range, the last mountain range to be 
     discovered and named by early explorers in the contiguous 
     United States, still retains a wild and undiscovered quality;
       (2) fluted badlands that surround the flanks of 11,000-foot 
     Mounts Ellen and Pennell contain areas of critical habitat 
     for mule deer and for the largest herd of free-roaming 
     buffalo in the United States;
       (3) despite their relative accessibility, the Henry 
     Mountain Range remains one of the wildest, least-known ranges 
     in the United States; and
       (4) the Henry Mountain range should be protected and 
     managed to ensure the preservation of the range as a 
     wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Bull Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (2) Bullfrog Creek (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (3) Dogwater Creek (approximately 3,400 acres).
       (4) Fremont Gorge (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (5) Long Canyon (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (6) Mount Ellen-Blue Hills (approximately 140,000 acres).
       (7) Mount Hillers (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (8) Mount Pennell (approximately 147,000 acres).
       (9) Notom Bench (approximately 6,200 acres).
       (10) Oak Creek (approximately 1,700 acres).
       (11) Ragged Mountain (approximately 28,000 acres).

     SEC. 105. GLEN CANYON WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the side canyons of Glen Canyon, including the Dirty 
     Devil River and the Red, White and Blue Canyons, contain some 
     of the most remote and outstanding landscapes in southern 
     Utah;
       (2) the Dirty Devil River, once the fortress hideout of 
     outlaw Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch, has sculpted a maze of 
     slickrock canyons through an imposing landscape of monoliths 
     and inaccessible mesas;
       (3) the Red and Blue Canyons contain colorful Chinle/
     Moenkopi badlands found nowhere else in the region; and
       (4) the canyons of Glen Canyon in the State should be 
     protected and managed as wilderness areas.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Cane Spring Desert (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (2) Dark Canyon (approximately 134,000 acres).
       (3) Dirty Devil (approximately 242,000 acres).
       (4) Fiddler Butte (approximately 92,000 acres).
       (5) Flat Tops (approximately 30,000 acres).
       (6) Little Rockies (approximately 64,000 acres).
       (7) The Needle (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (8) Red Rock Plateau (approximately 213,000 acres).
       (9) White Canyon (approximately 98,000 acres).

     SEC. 106. SAN JUAN-ANASAZI WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) more than 1,000 years ago, the Anasazi Indian culture 
     flourished in the slickrock canyons and on the pinon-covered 
     mesas of southeastern Utah;
       (2) evidence of the ancient presence of the Anasazi 
     pervades the Cedar Mesa area of the San Juan-Anasazi area 
     where cliff dwellings, rock art, and ceremonial kivas 
     embellish sandstone overhangs and isolated benchlands;
       (3) the Cedar Mesa area is in need of protection from the 
     vandalism and theft of its unique cultural resources;
       (4) the Cedar Mesa wilderness areas should be created to 
     protect both the archaeological heritage and the 
     extraordinary wilderness, scenic, and ecological values of 
     the United States; and
       (5) the San Juan-Anasazi area should be protected and 
     managed as a wilderness area to ensure the preservation of 
     the unique and valuable resources of that area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Allen Canyon (approximately 5,900 acres).
       (2) Arch Canyon (approximately 30,000 acres).
       (3) Comb Ridge (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (4) East Montezuma (approximately 45,000 acres).
       (5) Fish and Owl Creek Canyons (approximately 73,000 
     acres).
       (6) Grand Gulch (approximately 159,000 acres).
       (7) Hammond Canyon (approximately 4,400 acres).
       (8) Nokai Dome (approximately 93,000 acres).
       (9) Road Canyon (approximately 63,000 acres).

[[Page 5983]]

       (10) San Juan River (Sugarloaf) (approximately 15,000 
     acres).
       (11) The Tabernacle (approximately 7,000 acres).
       (12) Valley of the Gods (approximately 21,000 acres).

     SEC. 107. CANYONLANDS BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Canyonlands National Park safeguards only a small 
     portion of the extraordinary red-hued, cliff-walled 
     canyonland region of the Colorado Plateau;
       (2) areas near Arches National Park and Canyonlands 
     National Park contain canyons with rushing perennial streams, 
     natural arches, bridges, and towers;
       (3) the gorges of the Green and Colorado Rivers lie on 
     adjacent land managed by the Secretary;
       (4) popular overlooks in Canyonlands Nations Park and Dead 
     Horse Point State Park have views directly into adjacent 
     areas, including Lockhart Basin and Indian Creek; and
       (5) designation of those areas as wilderness would ensure 
     the protection of this erosional masterpiece of nature and of 
     the rich pockets of wildlife found within its expanded 
     boundaries.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Bridger Jack Mesa (approximately 33,000 acres).
       (2) Butler Wash (approximately 27,000 acres).
       (3) Dead Horse Cliffs (approximately 5,300 acres).
       (4) Demon's Playground (approximately 3,700 acres).
       (5) Duma Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (6) Gooseneck (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (7) Hatch Point Canyons/Lockhart Basin (approximately 
     149,000 acres).
       (8) Horsethief Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (9) Indian Creek (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (10) Labyrinth Canyon (approximately 150,000 acres).
       (11) San Rafael River (approximately 101,000 acres).
       (12) Shay Mountain (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (13) Sweetwater Reef (approximately 69,000 acres).
       (14) Upper Horseshoe Canyon (approximately 60,000 acres).

     SEC. 108. SAN RAFAEL SWELL WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the San Rafael Swell towers above the desert like a 
     castle, ringed by 1,000-foot ramparts of Navajo Sandstone;
       (2) the highlands of the San Rafael Swell have been 
     fractured by uplift and rendered hollow by erosion over 
     countless millennia, leaving a tremendous basin punctuated by 
     mesas, buttes, and canyons and traversed by sediment-laden 
     desert streams;
       (3) among other places, the San Rafael wilderness offers 
     exceptional back country opportunities in the colorful Wild 
     Horse Badlands, the monoliths of North Caineville Mesa, the 
     rock towers of Cliff Wash, and colorful cliffs of Humbug 
     Canyon;
       (4) the mountains within these areas are among Utah's most 
     valuable habitat for desert bighorn sheep; and
       (5) the San Rafael Swell area should be protected and 
     managed to ensure its preservation as a wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Cedar Mountain (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (2) Devils Canyon (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (3) Eagle Canyon (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (4) Factory Butte (approximately 22,000 acres).
       (5) Hondu Country (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (6) Jones Bench (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (7) Limestone Cliffs (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (8) Lost Spring Wash (approximately 37,000 acres).
       (9) Mexican Mountain (approximately 100,000 acres).
       (10) Molen Reef (approximately 33,000 acres).
       (11) Muddy Creek (approximately 240,000 acres).
       (12) Mussentuchit Badlands (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (13) Pleasant Creek Bench (approximately 1,100 acres).
       (14) Price River-Humbug (approximately 120,000 acres).
       (15) Red Desert (approximately 40,000 acres).
       (16) Rock Canyon (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (17) San Rafael Knob (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (18) San Rafael Reef (approximately 114,000 acres).
       (19) Sids Mountain (approximately 107,000 acres).
       (20) Upper Muddy Creek (approximately 19,000 acres).
       (21) Wild Horse Mesa (approximately 92,000 acres).

     SEC. 109. BOOK CLIFFS AND UINTA BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin wilderness areas 
     offer--
       (A) unique big game hunting opportunities in verdant high-
     plateau forests;
       (B) the opportunity for float trips of several days 
     duration down the Green River in Desolation Canyon; and
       (C) the opportunity for calm water canoe weekends on the 
     White River;
       (2) the long rampart of the Book Cliffs bounds the area on 
     the south, while seldom-visited uplands, dissected by the 
     rivers and streams, slope away to the north into the Uinta 
     Basin;
       (3) bears, Bighorn sheep, cougars, elk, and mule deer 
     flourish in the back country of the Book Cliffs; and
       (4) the Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin areas should be 
     protected and managed to ensure the protection of the areas 
     as wilderness.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Bourdette Draw (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (2) Bull Canyon (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (3) Chipeta (approximately 95,000 acres).
       (4) Dead Horse Pass (approximately 8,000 acres).
       (5) Desbrough Canyon (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (6) Desolation Canyon (approximately 555,000 acres).
       (7) Diamond Breaks (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (8) Diamond Canyon (approximately 166,000 acres).
       (9) Diamond Mountain (also known as ``Wild Mountain'') 
     (approximately 27,000 acres).
       (10) Dinosaur Adjacent (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (11) Goslin Mountain (approximately 4,900 acres).
       (12) Hideout Canyon (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (13) Lower Bitter Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (14) Lower Flaming Gorge (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (15) Mexico Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (16) Moonshine Draw (also known as ``Daniels Canyon'') 
     (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (17) Mountain Home (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (18) O-Wi-Yu-Kuts (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (19) Red Creek Badlands (approximately 3,600 acres).
       (20) Seep Canyon (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (21) Sunday School Canyon (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (22) Survey Point (approximately 8,000 acres).
       (23) Turtle Canyon (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (24) White River (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (25) Winter Ridge (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (26) Wolf Point (approximately 15,000 acres).

                  TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Names of Wilderness Areas.--Each wilderness area named 
     in title I shall--
       (1) consist of the quantity of land referenced with respect 
     to that named area, as generally depicted on the map entitled 
     ``Utah BLM Wilderness''; and
       (2) be known by the name given to it in title I.
       (b) Map and Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and a 
     legal description of each wilderness area designated by this 
     Act with--
       (A) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Force of law.--A map and legal description filed under 
     paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if 
     included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct 
     clerical and typographical errors in the map and legal 
     description.
       (3) Public availability.--Each map and legal description 
     filed under paragraph (1) shall be filed and made available 
     for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the 
     Bureau of Land Management.

     SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION.

       Subject to valid rights in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each wilderness area designated under 
     this Act shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance 
     with--
       (1) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and

[[Page 5984]]

       (2) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

     SEC. 203. STATE SCHOOL TRUST LAND WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), if State-owned 
     land is included in an area designated by this Act as a 
     wilderness area, the Secretary shall offer to exchange land 
     owned by the United States in the State of approximately 
     equal value in accordance with section 603(c) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)) 
     and section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1134(a)).
       (b) Mineral Interests.--The Secretary shall not transfer 
     any mineral interests under subsection (a) unless the State 
     transfers to the Secretary any mineral interests in land 
     designated by this Act as a wilderness area.

     SEC. 204. WATER.

       (a) Reservation.--
       (1) Water for wilderness areas.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to each wilderness area 
     designated by this Act, Congress reserves a quantity of water 
     determined by the Secretary to be sufficient for the 
     wilderness area.
       (B) Priority date.--The priority date of a right reserved 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Protection of rights.--The Secretary and other officers 
     and employees of the United States shall take any steps 
     necessary to protect the rights reserved by paragraph (1)(A), 
     including the filing of a claim for the quantification of the 
     rights in any present or future appropriate stream 
     adjudication in the courts of the State--
       (A) in which the United States is or may be joined; and
       (B) that is conducted in accordance with section 208 of the 
     Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1953 (66 Stat. 560, 
     chapter 651).
       (b) Prior Rights Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act 
     relinquishes or reduces any water rights reserved or 
     appropriated by the United States in the State on or before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Administration.--
       (1) Specification of rights.--The Federal water rights 
     reserved by this Act are specific to the wilderness areas 
     designated by this Act.
       (2) No precedent established.--Nothing in this Act related 
     to reserved Federal water rights--
       (A) shall establish a precedent with regard to any future 
     designation of water rights; or
       (B) shall affect the interpretation of any other Act or any 
     designation made under any other Act.

     SEC. 205. ROADS.

       (a) Setbacks.--
       (1) Measurement in general.--A setback under this section 
     shall be measured from the center line of the road.
       (2) Wilderness on 1 side of roads.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), a setback for a road with wilderness on only 
     1 side shall be set at--
       (A) 300 feet from a paved Federal or State highway;
       (B) 100 feet from any other paved road or high standard 
     dirt or gravel road; and
       (C) 30 feet from any other road.
       (3) Wilderness on both sides of roads.--Except as provided 
     in subsection (b), a setback for a road with wilderness on 
     both sides (including cherry-stems or roads separating 2 
     wilderness units) shall be set at--
       (A) 200 feet from a paved Federal or State highway;
       (B) 40 feet from any other paved road or high standard dirt 
     or gravel road; and
       (C) 10 feet from any other roads.
       (b) Setback Exceptions.--
       (1) Well-defined topographical barriers.--If, between the 
     road and the boundary of a setback area described in 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a), there is a well-
     defined cliff edge, stream bank, or other topographical 
     barrier, the Secretary shall use the barrier as the 
     wilderness boundary.
       (2) Fences.--If, between the road and the boundary of a 
     setback area specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection 
     (a), there is a fence running parallel to a road, the 
     Secretary shall use the fence as the wilderness boundary if, 
     in the opinion of the Secretary, doing so would result in a 
     more manageable boundary.
       (3) Deviations from setback areas.--
       (A) Exclusion of disturbances from wilderness boundaries.--
     In cases where there is an existing livestock development, 
     dispersed camping area, borrow pit, or similar disturbance 
     within 100 feet of a road that forms part of a wilderness 
     boundary, the Secretary may delineate the boundary so as to 
     exclude the disturbance from the wilderness area.
       (B) Limitation on exclusion of disturbances.--The Secretary 
     shall make a boundary adjustment under subparagraph (A) only 
     if the Secretary determines that doing so is consistent with 
     wilderness management goals.
       (C) Deviations restricted to minimum necessary.--Any 
     deviation under this paragraph from the setbacks required 
     under in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) shall be the 
     minimum necessary to exclude the disturbance.
       (c) Delineation Within Setback Area.--The Secretary may 
     delineate a wilderness boundary at a location within a 
     setback under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) if, as 
     determined by the Secretary, the delineation would enhance 
     wilderness management goals.

     SEC. 206. LIVESTOCK.

       Within the wilderness areas designated under title I, the 
     grazing of livestock authorized on the date of enactment of 
     this Act shall be permitted to continue subject to such 
     reasonable regulations and procedures as the Secretary 
     considers necessary, as long as the regulations and 
     procedures are consistent with--
       (1) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
       (2) section 101(f) of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-628; 104 Stat. 4469).

     SEC. 207. FISH AND WILDLIFE.

       Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of the State 
     with respect to wildlife and fish on the public land located 
     in the State.

     SEC. 208. MANAGEMENT OF NEWLY ACQUIRED LAND.

       Any land within the boundaries of a wilderness area 
     designated under this Act that is acquired by the Federal 
     Government shall--
       (1) become part of the wilderness area in which the land is 
     located; and
       (2) be managed in accordance with this Act and other laws 
     applicable to wilderness areas.

     SEC. 209. WITHDRAWAL.

       Subject to valid rights existing on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Federal land referred to in title I is 
     withdrawn from all forms of--
       (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under public law;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under mining law; and
       (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 
     geothermal leasing or mineral materials.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 20 years ago, when I was elected to the 
U.S. Senate, a group of people came to me and asked me to sponsor a 
bill. It was a bill that had been sponsored many times by Senator Bill 
Bradley of New Jersey. He retired shortly before I arrived.
  The bill related to the Utah wilderness. I remember saying to those 
who approached me: This isn't my State. It is the State of Utah.
  They said: This is a bill which we are having some controversy with 
when it comes to the Utah congressional delegation.
  Secondly, I said: It is a wilderness bill about a part of the world 
that I have never seen. I don't feel right introducing it.
  They said: Why don't you come out and look at it?
  I did just a few weeks later. My wife and I went and took a look at 
the Red Rocks Wilderness area in Utah. I will tell you, initially, as a 
midwesterner, when I looked at the stark landscape, I looked around 
thinking, what are we trying to preserve here? I took a closer look, 
which everyone should, and found a unique part of America--a wilderness 
area which can't be found anywhere else and a wilderness area which 
boasts archeological and historic and environmental significance way 
beyond what many people in the rest of the lower 48 might appreciate.
  Today, I am reintroducing the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act. It 
would safeguard 9.2 million acres of Park Bureau Land Management land 
in Utah as wilderness--some of the last great wild places in the lower 
48.
  Throughout my time in the Senate, I have worked with the committed 
volunteers of the Utah Wilderness Coalition to protect the stunning, 
fragile desert landscape. These unique lands are rich in archeological 
resources and provide a habitat for rare plants and species. They offer 
unparalleled research, educational, and recreational opportunities for 
scientists, teachers, outdoor enthusiasts, and families.
  The Bureau of Land Management has confirmed that the vast majority of 
the majority of the lands meet the qualifications for a wilderness 
designation. However, despite their pristine condition and their 
historical significance, these lands are threatened by oil and gas 
development, as well as rampant off-road vehicle use.
  Although these activities are appropriate in some places, they don't 
belong in such a fragile landscape. Designating these lands as 
wilderness would safeguard wildlife, protect ancestral lands, help 
mitigate climate change, and provide access to future generations of 
hunters, anglers, hikers, boaters, and lovers of the natural world.

[[Page 5985]]

  Last December, President Obama took an important step in protecting 
some of Southern Utah's fragile lands by designating the Bears Ears 
National Monument, which contains some of the lands that would be 
protected by my Red Rocks bill.
  The 1.35 million-acre swath of land covers forested mesas and red 
rock canyons, and the designation protected the region's abundant 
Native American cultural resources. The monument contains well over 
100,000 cultural and archeological sites. Let me say that again. Over 
100,000 cultural and archeological sites, including ancient cliff 
dwellings, granaries, burial sites, and kivas, as well as spectacular 
pictographs and petroglyphs strewn upon rock walls and boulders all 
across the region.
  Artifacts range from 700 to 12,000 years old, providing tribes with 
an incredible insight into the shared history of their ancestral 
homeland, bolstering their deep spiritual connection to the land 
itself.
  The Bears Ears National Monument, designated by President Obama, is 
the first monument of its kind to be proposed and advocated by a united 
coalition of five Tribes who sought its protection because of its 
importance in their respective culture. In total, 30 Native American 
tribes with ancestral, historical, and contemporary ties to the Bears 
Ears region supported the designation.
  The Tribal coalition's original Bears Ears proposal was 1.9 million 
acres. You see them here. It is slightly larger than the 1.35 million-
acre designation by President Obama.
  Many in the Utah delegation, including one of my colleagues in the 
Senate, have raised concerns about President Obama's decision to 
protect this area and even the size of the designation. One of the 
critics of the size of the designation is the chairman of the House 
Natural Resources Committee, Rob Bishop.
  Last Congress, before President Obama designated the Bears Ears 
region a national monument, the same Chairman Bishop introduced a bill 
that would have protected part of the Bears Ears region while opening 
other areas of land for oil and gas development.
  Look at the two here in comparison. Chairman Bishop's proposal 
protected 1.28 million acres--only 17,500 acres smaller than the area 
protected by President Obama.
  As you can see from these maps, the areas protected by Chairman 
Bishop's Public Lands Initiative are not that much different than the 
areas protected by the Bears Ears National Monument. To argue that the 
designation is so much larger than anyone anticipated is to ignore what 
the chairman submitted in his own legislation last year. Both are much 
smaller than what the Tribes originally requested, which is the third 
map here.
  Despite that, Utah's congressional delegation has called the area 
``well beyond the areas in need of protection'' and they pushed 
President Trump to consider shrinking or overturning this wilderness 
monument designation. Yet Utah's Salt Lake Tribune called Utah 
politicians' determination to rescind these designations ``blindness.''
  Let me quote the Salt Lake Tribune:

       That blindness can be sourced to Utah's one-party political 
     system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with 
     their constituents.

  They then continue and say:

       The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there 
     is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The 
     presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries 
     and shared management [Utah Rep. Rob] Bishop pursued with his 
     public lands initiative.

  They saw the same maps and said: Why is this acceptable and this 
objectionable?
  Today, President Trump is planning to sign an Executive order. It is 
going to call on the Department of Interior to review previous national 
monument designations under the Antiquities Act.
  While the President's Executive order will target the Bears Ears 
National Monument first, the order is going to go well beyond Utah and 
consider changes to all of the national monuments that have been 
designated since 1996--more than 50 different sites.
  These are areas designated ``national monument protected areas'' by 
Republican and Democratic Presidents with bipartisan support. Yet 
President Trump is going to insist with his new order that he can 
review and change every single one of them.
  Let me tell you the list of places and sites of great cultural 
significance that could be impacted: A portion of Sequoia National 
Forest in California, Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National 
Historic Park in Maryland, African Burial Ground National Monument in 
New York, and in my home State of Illinois, the Pullman National 
Monument.
  It is rare for any national monument designation to be changed by 
another President. It happened once. The last time a President used the 
Antiquities Act to adjust the borders of a national monument was over a 
century ago, in 1915. Then-President Woodrow Wilson shrunk Washington 
State's Mount Olympus National Monument so they could harvest more 
timber resources from this land.
  A lot has changed since 1915, including our views on conservation. 
Attacks on conservation seem to have remained consistent. One of our 
greatest conservation Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt--a proud Republican, 
I might add--faced a great deal of opposition to his designation of a 
national monument that most of us are familiar with--the Grand Canyon.
  Most Americans can't imagine our country without the iconic Grand 
Canyon because it is truly a national treasure. At the time of its 1908 
designation by President Roosevelt, groups were opposed to protecting 
that area. For years after its designation, oil and gas miners fought 
additional protections for the Grand Canyon.
  The attacks on the Bears Ears designation doesn't seem all that 
different from the attacks on the Grand Canyon, but the attacks on the 
Bears Ears National Monument also attack the Native people who have 
worked so hard to get this area protected.
  Let's be very honest. When we look at how Native Americans were 
treated by our government and the settlers, we certainly look back with 
some shame and some embarrassment. What the Tribes are asking for here 
is a protection of areas that are of special significance to them and 
special significance to the environmental legacy, which we should be 
leaving to future generations.
  The President's decision to review these national monuments puts the 
future of these resources in jeopardy and threatens our culture, 
history, and heritage. If President Donald Trump decides to use the 
Antiquities Act to reverse one of these monuments, he would treading in 
uncharted water. Never before has a President used the Antiquities Act 
to repeal a national monument. For what purpose? For oil and gas 
exploration? For off-the-road vehicle use?
  These monuments themselves help promote tourism and outdoor 
recreation. Regions with national monuments saw increased employment 
and personal income growth--exactly the opposite of what the critics 
promised. Specifically, rural counties in the West, with protected 
lands, saw jobs increase by 345 percent over areas without protected 
lands--345 percent. Despite the opposition from Utah's elected 
officials, many in the State, including the Tribes, want to protect 
those areas, and I want to help them.
  Teddy Roosevelt once said:

       It is also vandalism wantonly to destroy or to permit the 
     destruction of what is beautiful in nature, whether it be a 
     cliff, a forest, or a species of mammal or bird. Here in the 
     United States we turn our rivers and streams into sewers and 
     dumping-grounds, we pollute the air, we destroy forests, and 
     exterminate fishes, birds, and mammals--not to speak of 
     vulgarizing charming landscapes with hideous advertisements. 
     But at last it looks as if our people were awakened.

  That was said by that Republican President over a century ago. Since 
Teddy Roosevelt's time, we have made progress in protecting our lands 
and waters, but these recent attacks and this recent Executive order by 
President Donald Trump show that we still have a long way to go.
  I urge this administration, this Republican administration, to heed 
the

[[Page 5986]]

words of Teddy Roosevelt. Carefully consider the legacy they will leave 
to future generations. It would be foolish not to protect Bears Ears 
and other monuments, just as it would have been foolish to listen to 
the critics and refuse to protect the Grand Canyon.
  These monuments are for all of us, and we must ensure that they 
remain in their current natural condition for future generations to 
enjoy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 949. A bill to require the Director of the Office of Personnel 
Management to create a classification that more accurately reflects the 
vital role of wildland firefighters; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 949

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Wildland Firefighter 
     Recognition Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management;
       (2) the term ``employee'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code;
       (3) the term ``Federal land management agency'' means--
       (A) within the Department of the Interior--
       (i) the Bureau of Land Management;
       (ii) the Bureau of Indian Affairs;
       (iii) the National Park Service; and
       (iv) the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and
       (B) within the Department of Agriculture, the Forest 
     Service;
       (4) the term ``wildland fire''--
       (A) means any non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation 
     or natural fuels; and
       (B) includes prescribed fire and wildfire; and
       (5) the term ``wildland firefighter'' means--
       (A) an employee of a Federal land management agency, the 
     duties of whose position are primarily to perform work 
     directly related to the prevention, control, suppression, or 
     management of wildland fires, including an employee of a 
     Federal land management agency who is assigned to support 
     wildland fire activities; and
       (B) an employee of a Federal land management agency who is 
     transferred to a supervisory or administrative position from 
     a position described in subparagraph (A).

     SEC. 3. CLASSIFICATION OF WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS.

       (a) Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director, in cooperation with the 
     Federal land management agencies, shall commence development 
     of a distinct wildland firefighter occupational series that 
     more accurately reflects the variety of duties performed by 
     wildland firefighters.
       (2) Designation.--The official title assigned to any 
     occupational series established under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the designation of ``Wildland Firefighter''.
       (3) Positions described.--Paragraph (1) shall apply with 
     respect to any class or other category of positions that 
     consists primarily or exclusively of forestry technician 
     positions, range technician positions, or any other positions 
     the duties and responsibilities of which include--
       (A) significant prevention, preparedness, control, 
     suppression, or management activities for wildland fires; or
       (B) activities necessary to meet any other emergency 
     incident to which assigned.
       (4) Consultation.--It is the sense of Congress that the 
     Director should consult with employee associations and any 
     other groups that represent wildland firefighters in carrying 
     out this subsection.
       (5) Implementation.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act--
       (A) the Director shall complete the development of the 
     wildland firefighter occupational series required under 
     paragraph (1); and
       (B) the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall use the wildland firefighter occupational 
     series developed under paragraph (1) in the advertising and 
     hiring of a wildland firefighter.
       (b) Hazardous Duty Differential Not Affected.--Section 
     5545(d)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``except'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``except--
       ``(A) an employee in an occupational series covering 
     positions for which the primary duties involve the 
     prevention, control, suppression, or management of wildland 
     fires, as determined by the Office; and
       ``(B) in such other circumstances as the Office may by 
     regulation prescribe; and''.
       (c) Current Employees.--Any individual employed as a 
     wildland firefighter on the date on which the occupational 
     series established under subsection (a) takes effect may 
     elect to--
       (1) remain in the occupational series in which the 
     individual is working; or
       (2) be included in the wildland firefighter occupational 
     series established under subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DAINES (for himself and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 950. A bill to correct problems pertaining to human resources for 
career and volunteer personnel engaged in wildland fire and structure 
fire; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 950

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Wildland 
     Firefighter Fairness Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Single qualification and certification system.
Sec. 3. Personnel flexibility relating to the Robert T. Stafford 
              Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
Sec. 4. Extension of service limits for seasonal hires.
Sec. 5. Civil service retention rights.
Sec. 6. Computation of pay.

     SEC. 2. SINGLE QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION SYSTEM.

       (a) Merging 2 Systems.--The Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall work with States and the 
     Workforce Development Committee of the National Wildfire 
     Coordinating Group to merge the Incident Qualification System 
     and the Incident Qualification and Certification System into 
     a single system by September 30, 2025.
       (b) Elimination of Bureau Add-On Requirements.--On and 
     after October 1, 2021, the Secretary of the Interior and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may not require a person to 
     demonstrate additional competencies to obtain, make use of, 
     or maintain a qualification or certification for a fire 
     position, regardless of which jurisdictional agency employs 
     the person.

     SEC. 3. PERSONNEL FLEXIBILITY RELATING TO THE ROBERT T. 
                   STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND EMERGENCY 
                   ASSISTANCE ACT.

       (a) Definition of Time-Limited Appointment.--Section 9601 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) the term `time-limited appointment' includes--
       ``(A) a temporary appointment and a term appointment, as 
     defined by the Office of Personnel Management;
       ``(B) an appointment pursuant to section 306(b)(1) of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5149(b)(1)); and
       ``(C) an appointment pursuant to subtitle E of title I of 
     the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12611 et seq.).''.
       (b) Competitive Service; Time-Limited Appointments.--
     Section 9602 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (e) as 
     subsections (d) through (g), respectively;
       (2) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting 
     ``Appointments to Land Management Agencies.--
     Notwithstanding''; and
       (B) by inserting ``described in section 9601(2)(A)'' after 
     ``time-limited appointment'';
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Appointments Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.--Notwithstanding chapter 
     33 or any other provision of law relating to the examination, 
     certification, and appointment of individuals in the 
     competitive service--
       ``(1) an employee appointed under the authority described 
     in section 9601(2)(B) and serving under a full-time, time-
     limited appointment is eligible to compete for a permanent 
     appointment in the competitive service at the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency or any other agency (as defined 
     in section 101 of title 31) under the internal merit 
     promotion procedures of the applicable agency if--
       ``(A) the employee has served under 1 or more time-limited 
     appointments for at least 2 years without a break in service; 
     and
       ``(B) the performance of the employee has been at an 
     acceptable level of performance

[[Page 5987]]

     throughout the 1 or more time-limited appointment periods 
     referred to in subparagraph (A); and
       ``(2) an employee appointed under the authority described 
     in section 9601(2)(B) and serving under an intermittent, 
     time-limited appointment is eligible for a permanent 
     appointment in the competitive service at the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency or any other agency (as defined 
     in section 101 of title 31) under the internal merit 
     promotion procedures of the applicable agency if--
       ``(A) the employee has served under 1 or more time-limited 
     appointments;
       ``(B) the employee has been deployed at least 522 days;
       ``(C) the employee has not declined any deployments while 
     in an `available' status; and
       ``(D) the performance of the employee has been at an 
     acceptable level of performance throughout the 1 or more 
     time-limited appointments referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(c) Appointments Under the National and Community Service 
     Act of 1990.--
       ``(1) Definition of employee.--Notwithstanding section 
     160(a) of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12620(a)), in this subsection, the term `employee' 
     includes individuals appointed under subtitle E of title I of 
     that Act (42 U.S.C. 16211 et seq.).
       ``(2) Competition for permanent appointment.--
     Notwithstanding chapter 33 or any other provision of law 
     relating to the examination, certification, and appointment 
     of individuals in the competitive service, a member of the 
     National Civilian Community Corps appointed under subtitle E 
     of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12611 et seq.) who serves 2 consecutive terms is 
     eligible to compete for a permanent appointment in the 
     competitive service at the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency or any other agency (as defined in section 101 of 
     title 31) under the internal merit promotion procedures 
     during the 2-year period beginning on the date of the 
     expiration of the appointment under section 160(a) of the 
     National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12620(a)), if the performance of the employee has been at an 
     acceptable level of performance throughout the period.'';
       (4) in subsection (d) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``In determining'' and inserting ``Waiver of Age 
     Requirements.--In determining'';
       (5) in subsection (e) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``An individual'' and inserting ``Tenure and 
     Status.--An individual'';
       (6) in subsection (f) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``A former'' and inserting ``Former 
     Employees.--A former''; and
       (B) by inserting ``or the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency'' after ``management agency''; and
       (7) in subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``The Office'' and inserting ``Regulations.--The 
     Office''.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF SERVICE LIMITS FOR SEASONAL HIRES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``covered Secretary'' means--
       (A) the Secretary of the Interior; and
       (B) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       (2) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the Office 
     of Personnel Management; and
       (3) the term ``pilot program'' means the pilot program 
     established under subsection (b).
       (b) Pilot Program.--The Director shall establish a pilot 
     program for seasonal or temporary Federal employees, the 
     duties of which primarily involve being a firefighter.
       (c) Expansion of Service Year Limitations.--Under the pilot 
     program, each covered Secretary may expand a service year 
     limitation to enable a seasonal firefighter to be employed 
     for a period that exceeds 1,040 hours in a given year if the 
     covered Secretary determines the expansion to be necessary to 
     stage fire crews earlier or later in a year to accommodate 
     longer fire seasons.
       (d) Standards.--The Director, in cooperation with each 
     covered Secretary, shall establish standards and guidelines 
     for the pilot program.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on which 
     the pilot program is established, the Director shall submit a 
     report that describes the use and impact of the pilot program 
     to--
       (1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (f) Termination.--The pilot program shall terminate on the 
     date that is 5 years after the date on which the pilot 
     program is established.

     SEC. 5. CIVIL SERVICE RETENTION RIGHTS.

       Section 8151 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Regulations.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `covered employee' means an employee who--
       ``(i) served in a position in the Forest Service or the 
     Department of the Interior as a wildland firefighter; and
       ``(ii) sustained an injury while in the performance of 
     duty, as determined by the Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management, that prevents the employee from 
     performing the physical duties of a firefighter;
       ``(B) the term `equivalent position' includes a position 
     for a covered employee that--
       ``(i) allows the covered employee to receive the same 
     retirement benefits under subchapter III of chapter 83 or 
     chapter 84 that the covered employee would have received in 
     the former position had the covered employee not been injured 
     or disabled; and
       ``(ii) does not require the covered employee to complete 
     any more years of service than the covered employee would 
     have been required to complete to receive the benefits 
     described in clause (i) had the covered employee not been 
     injured or disabled; and
       ``(C) the term `firefighter' has the meaning given the term 
     in section 8331.
       ``(2) Regulations.--Under regulations issued by the Office 
     of Personnel Management--
       ``(A) the department or agency that was the last employer 
     shall immediately and unconditionally accord the employee, if 
     the injury or disability has been overcome within 1 year 
     after the date of commencement of compensation or from the 
     time compensable disability recurs if the recurrence begins 
     after the injured employee resumes regular full-time 
     employment with the United States, the right to resume the 
     former position of the employee or an equivalent position, as 
     well as all other attendant rights that the employee would 
     have had, or acquired, in the former position of the employee 
     had the employee not been injured or disabled, including the 
     rights to tenure, promotion, and safeguards in reductions-in-
     force procedures;
       ``(B) the department or agency that was the last employer 
     shall, if the injury or disability is overcome within a 
     period of more than 1 year after the date of commencement of 
     compensation, make all reasonable efforts to place, and 
     accord priority to placing, the employee in the former 
     position of the employee or an equivalent position within the 
     department or agency, or within any other department or 
     agency; and
       ``(C) a covered employee who was injured during the 20-year 
     period ending on the date of enactment of the Wildland 
     Firefighter Fairness Act may not receive the same retirement 
     benefits described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii) unless the covered 
     employee first makes a payment to the Forest Service or the 
     Department of the Interior, as applicable, equal to the 
     amount that would have been deducted from pay under section 
     8334 or 8442, as applicable, had the covered employee not 
     been injured or disabled.''.

     SEC. 6. COMPUTATION OF PAY.

       (a) In General.--Section 8114 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(e) Overtime.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `covered 
     overtime pay' means pay received by an employee who serves in 
     a position in the Forest Service or the Department of the 
     Interior as a wildland firefighter while engaged in wildland 
     fire suppression activity.
       ``(2) Overtime.--The value of subsistence and quarters, and 
     of any other form of remuneration in kind for services if its 
     value can be estimated in money, and covered overtime pay and 
     premium pay under section 5545(c)(1) of this title are 
     included as part of the pay, but account is not taken of--
       ``(A) overtime pay;
       ``(B) additional pay or allowance authorized outside the 
     United States because of differential in cost of living or 
     other special circumstances; or
       ``(C) bonus or premium pay for extraordinary service 
     including bonus or pay for particularly hazardous service in 
     time of war.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2019.

                          ____________________




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13--CALLING UPON THE PRESIDENT TO ISSUE A 
 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE ABIDING IMPORTANCE OF THE HELSINKI FINAL 
  ACT AND ITS RELEVANCE TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES

  Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. 
Tillis, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Udall) 
submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                            S. Con. Res. 13

       Whereas the Final Act of the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) concluded on August 1, 1975 (in 
     this joint resolution referred to as the ``Helsinki Final 
     Act''), established a comprehensive

[[Page 5988]]

     concept of security that encompasses political-military, 
     environmental and economic, and human rights and humanitarian 
     dimensions;
       Whereas the Helsinki Final Act set out a declaration of ten 
     fundamental Principles Guiding Relations Between States, 
     which all participating States committed to respect and put 
     into practice in their relations with each other, that have 
     been the basis of the international order in the OSCE Region 
     since its inception in 1975;
       Whereas these Principles, adopted on the basis of consensus 
     by all participating States and reaffirmed through the years, 
     enshrine--
       (1) sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in 
     sovereignty;
       (2) refraining from the threat or use of force;
       (3) inviolability of frontiers;
       (4) territorial integrity of States;
       (5) peaceful settlement of disputes;
       (6) non-intervention in internal affairs;
       (7) respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
     including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or 
     belief;
       (8) equal rights and self-determination of peoples;
       (9) cooperation among States; and
       (10) fulfilment in good faith of obligations under 
     international law;

       Whereas the Helsinki Final Act, for the first time in the 
     history of international agreements, recognized that respect 
     for, and implementation of, commitments to human rights and 
     fundamental freedoms are integral to stability and security 
     within and among nations;
       Whereas, in the 1990 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, the 
     participating States declared, ``Human rights and fundamental 
     freedoms are the birthright of all human beings, are 
     inalienable and are guaranteed by law. Their protection and 
     promotion is the first responsibility of government,'' and 
     committed themselves ``to build, consolidate and strengthen 
     democracy as the only system of government of our nations'';
       Whereas, in 1991, participating States met in Moscow and 
     unanimously agreed that ``issues relating to human rights, 
     fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of 
     international concern, as respect for these rights and 
     freedoms constitutes one of the foundations of international 
     order;'' and declared ``categorically and irrevocably . . . 
     that the commitments undertaken in the field of the human 
     dimension of the CSCE are matters of direct and legitimate 
     concern to all participating States and do not belong 
     exclusively to the internal affairs of the State concerned'';
       Whereas the CSCE was renamed the Organization for Security 
     and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in January 1995, reaffirming 
     the continued relevance and applicability of previously made 
     principles and provisions in a Europe no longer divided 
     between East and West and as the number of participating 
     States increased from the original 35 to 57 today;
       Whereas the Helsinki Final Act, by making respect for human 
     rights and implementation of commitments by participating 
     States a permanent priority in the relations between States, 
     provided an international foundation for the democratic 
     aspirations of peoples throughout Europe and contributed to 
     the peaceful end to the Cold War;
       Whereas the seventh Principle confirmed the right of the 
     individual to know and act upon his or her rights, which 
     inspired citizens from the participating States to associate 
     and assemble for the purposes of monitoring and encouraging 
     compliance with the principles and provisions of the Helsinki 
     Final Act and subsequent documents of the CSCE and OSCE;
       Whereas, during the Communist era, members of 
     nongovernmental organizations, such as the Helsinki 
     Monitoring Groups in Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia as 
     well as in Lithuania, and similar groups in Czechoslovakia 
     and Poland, sacrificed their personal freedom and even their 
     lives in their courageous and vocal support for the 
     principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act;
       Whereas members of nongovernmental organizations, civil 
     society, and independent media across the region covered by 
     the OSCE continue to risk their safety to advance the 
     principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, often in the 
     face of harassment and threats from their own governments who 
     are OSCE participating States;
       Whereas the United States Congress contributed to advancing 
     the aims of the Helsinki Final Act by creating the Commission 
     on Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor and 
     encourage compliance with its principles and provisions;
       Whereas many countries continue to fall significantly short 
     of implementing their OSCE commitments, particularly in the 
     Human Dimension;
       Whereas the Russian Federation is responsible for the 
     clear, gross, and uncorrected violation of all ten Principles 
     of the Helsinki Final Act;
       Whereas, for many years, the Russian Federation has ignored 
     its OSCE commitments related to the Human Dimension of 
     comprehensive security by cracking down on civil society and 
     independent media through harassment, intimidation, 
     burdensome legal constraints, and violence, undermining the 
     ability of its citizens to freely choose their leaders;
       Whereas Russia's internal repression is directly related to 
     its external aggression, including in Ukraine, Georgia, and 
     Syria;
       Whereas the Government of the Russian Federation has 
     interfered through information warfare and cyber-intrusions 
     and otherwise engaged in deliberate and malicious efforts to 
     undermine confidence in the democratic institutions and 
     processes of other OSCE participating States;
       Whereas the first Principle recognizes the right of each 
     participating State ``to be or not to be a party to bilateral 
     or multilateral treaties including the right to be or not to 
     be a party to treaties of alliance; they also have the right 
     to neutrality'';
       Whereas the OSCE's participating States bear primary 
     responsibility for raising violations of the Helsinki Final 
     Act and other OSCE documents;
       Whereas successive United States Administrations since the 
     Helsinki Final Act was signed in 1975 have made the Act's 
     Principles Guiding Relations Between States a basis for 
     United States policy toward Europe and the OSCE region as a 
     whole; and
       Whereas Congress has strongly supported and encouraged the 
     United States to encourage improved compliance with these 
     Principles, including by raising its concerns about non-
     compliance in a direct and frank manner and continues to do 
     so today: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That Congress calls upon the President to--
       (1) issue a proclamation--
       (A) reaffirming the United States' commitment to the 
     Guiding Principles of the Final Act of the Conference on 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe;
       (B) reasserting the commitment of the United States to full 
     implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, including respect 
     for human rights and fundamental freedoms, defense of the 
     principles of liberty, and tolerance within societies, all of 
     which are vital to the promotion of democracy;
       (C) urging all participating States to fully implement 
     their commitments under the Helsinki Final Act;
       (D) calling upon all participating States to respect each 
     other's sovereign right to join alliances;
       (E) condemning the clear, gross, and uncorrected violation 
     of all ten core OSCE principles enshrined in the Helsinki 
     Final Act by the Russian Federation with respect to other 
     OSCE participating States, including Georgia, Moldova, and 
     Ukraine; and
       (F) condemning all other violations of the Helsinki Final 
     Act and its fundamental Guiding Principles; and
       (2) conveying to all signatory states of the Helsinki Final 
     Act that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, 
     democratic principles, economic liberty, and the 
     implementation of related commitments continue to be vital 
     elements in promoting a new and lasting era of democracy, 
     peace, and unity in the region covered by the Organization 
     for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

                          ____________________




                    AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to 
meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of 
the Majority and Minority leaders.
  Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's 
session of the Senate:


               Committee on Environment and Public Works

  The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet 
during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, at 10 
a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a 
hearing entitled, ``A Review of the Technical, Scientific, and Legal 
Basis of the WOTUS Rule.''


                     Committee on Foreign Relations

  The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the 
session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., to 
hold a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''


          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

  The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized 
to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on 
Wednesday, April 26, in between votes in SD-430.


                     Committee on Homeland Security

  The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is 
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 
26, 2017, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled 
``Duplication, Waste, and Fraud in Federal Programs.''

[[Page 5989]]




                       Committee on the Judiciary

  The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the 
session of the Senate, on April 26, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of 
the Dirksen Senate Office Building.


                      Committee on Small Business

  The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to 
meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, at 
10 a.m., in 428A Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing 
entitled, ``The Challenges and Opportunities of Running a Small 
Business in Rural America.''


                       Committee on Intelligence

  The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet 
during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on 
Wednesday, April 26, 2017 from 10 a.m. in room SD-106 of the Dirksen 
Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Nomination of 
Courtney Simmons Elwood to be General Counsel of the Central 
Intelligence Agency.''


           Subcommittee on Space, Science, & Competitiveness

  The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized 
to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 
26, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office 
Building.
  The Committee will hold Subcommittee Hearing on ``Reopening the 
American Frontier: Reducing Regulatory Barriers and Expanding American 
Free Enterprise in Space.''

                          ____________________




                           KIDS TO PARKS DAY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of 
S. Res. 123 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 123) designating May 20, 2017, as 
     ``Kids to Parks Day.''

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 123) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of April 
7, 2017, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________




                          ORDERS FOR THURSDAY,
                             APRIL 27, 2017

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., 
Thursday, April 27; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the 
morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved 
to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later 
in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following 
leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume 
consideration of the Acosta nomination; finally, that all time during 
recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count 
postcloture on the Acosta nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                   ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned 
under the previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 2:05 p.m., adjourned until 
Thursday, April 27, 2017, at 10 a.m.




[[Page 5990]]

           HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro 
tempore (Mr. Woodall).

                          ____________________




                   DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   April 26, 2017.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Rob Woodall to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                     Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________




                          MORNING-HOUR DEBATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists 
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
  The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each 
party limited to 1 hour and each Member other than the majority and 
minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no 
event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.

                          ____________________




                         TRUMPCARE FLEXIBILITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, as my Republican colleagues debate 
TrumpCare amongst themselves, they speak so often of so-called 
flexibility. But let's be clear about what that wink and nod to 
insurance companies actually means.
  For working families, flexibility is a cold euphemism for less 
choice; actually, for an impossible choice between caring for a new 
child or aging parent, between lifesaving treatment or your life 
savings, between an inpatient bed or monthly mortgage, desperately 
needed medication or food on your table, between life, and, yes, for 
some, death, because the moment essential health benefits become 
negotiable, they become dispensable.
  And while insurance companies might enjoy that newfound flexibility, 
American families and our loved ones will pay that price.

                          ____________________




       PHILLIP AND PATRICIA FROST MUSEUM OF SCIENCE GRAND OPENING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Phillip 
and Patricia Frost Museum of Science for the opening of its new 
location in downtown Miami in my congressional district on May 8. From 
its humble beginnings in 1950 as the Junior Museum of Miami, the Frost 
Museum has enjoyed tremendous success becoming the premier educational 
attraction for families and children across south Florida.
  The nationally recognized afterschool programs and summer camps 
offered at the Frost Museum of Science have provided generations of 
students the firsthand opportunity to explore science, technology, 
marine life, and astronomy, undoubtedly contributing to south Florida 
students' immense interest in STEM careers.
  The new location in downtown Miami will provide state-of-the-art 
facilities and expand the interactive exhibits and demonstrations that 
keep patrons of the Frost Museum of Science returning year after year.
  I would like to invite all of south Florida to come out to the new 
Phillip and Patricia Frost Museum of Science on May 8 to celebrate the 
grand opening of this magnificent new facility.


  Recognizing Our Lady of Lourdes Academy and St. Thomas the Apostle 
                            Catholic School

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two 
extraordinary schools from my district, Our Lady of Lourdes Academy and 
St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic School, which have been selected 
regional winners for the Toshiba 2017 ExploraVision competition.
  Their award-winning projects included a unique system for detecting 
blood clots through the use of sonar, synthetic photosynthesis, and an 
app to assist individuals with food allergies.
  These innovative projects not only demonstrate our students' interest 
in STEM careers but a greater dedication to create solutions to the 
problems of today and tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the participants from Our Lady of 
Lourdes Academy and St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic School because this 
latest accomplishment further demonstrates the commitment that students 
in my district have toward making a better future for all.
  Congratulations to the winners at Lourdes and St. Thomas for the 
Toshiba 2017 ExploraVision competition.


                      Recognizing DMR Corporation

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize DMR 
Corporation, which is opening a new medical supply retail store this 
Friday in my congressional district.
  Since its start in 1984, DMR has been working to meet the rising and 
challenging needs of the disabled community in south Florida and around 
the world. DMR counts with highly trained staff and with the tools 
necessary to build appropriate mobility and seating equipment, make 
accessible home and vehicle modifications, and install pool lifts for 
recreational activities.
  It is thanks to the vision of the founder, Nella Pardo, and her 
commitment of service to others that DMR has thrived and has given 
nearly 12,000 clients the possibilities of better mobility that only a 
unique, custom-built wheelchair can offer.
  DMR has contributed so many thousands of free wheelchairs to the 
needy disabled in south Florida, and it participates in many events to 
raise funds that will enable disabled individuals to have the mobility 
equipment they desperately need. Congrats to all.


                  Congratulating Williamson Automotive

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate 
Williamson Automotive on its significant milestone of 50 years of a 
highly successful and award-winning dealership.
  Williamson Automotive does more than just create jobs and spur the 
economy of our community, as important as those are, but it has also 
engaged in various philanthropic ventures to best serve south Florida.
  From their work contributing to Habitat for Humanity of Greater Miami 
to supporting a number of high school sports teams and sponsoring 
events for Relay For Life, Williamson Automotive never ceases to go 
above and beyond for south Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, Williamson Automotive embodies what many homegrown 
businesses should, a passion for what you do and the ability to serve 
your community broadly, and they do just that.
  I know that our community joins me in thanking Ed, Carol, and Trae 
Williamson and their staff for all that they have done and will 
continue to do to make our tropical paradise an even better place.

[[Page 5991]]

  Once again, congratulations to Williamson Automotive on celebrating 
50 years, and I wish you all the best and many more years of service to 
south Florida.

                          ____________________




                    PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the week, President Trump will 
reach his 100th day in office. These first 100 days, unfortunately, 
have been defined by chaos, contradiction, and conflicts of interest, 
and he has broken campaign promise after campaign promise.
  He claimed he would be the greatest jobs President God ever created, 
yet he has failed to put forward a single jobs bill and is taking 
credit for jobs that were created or announced long before he took 
office.
  He said he would fight for working families, yet his budget would 
slash investments that create jobs and opportunities. He said he would 
drain the swamp, yet he refuses to release his taxes, which would shed 
light on his own conflict of interest.
  Washington is now practically drowning in the swamp President Trump 
has rained down on our Capital. He promised to balance the budget in 9 
years. It took him, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, less than 30 days to 
abandon that pledge, and his most recent proposals--tax cuts--would 
plunge our Nation even more deeply into debt.
  But perhaps most emblematic of the failure of this Presidency's first 
100 days was his attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act and 
purportedly to replace it.
  The President has promised insurance for everybody--not access, 
insurance for everybody. He said that over and over again. But 
TrumpCare would do exactly the opposite, kicking 24 million people off 
their coverage and precluding millions more from being able to get 
health insurance.
  The President promised coverage that is much less expensive and much 
better, but TrumpCare would force Americans to pay more for less. Not 
my observation--the Congressional Budget Office's.
  The President promised he wouldn't cut Medicaid, but like so many 
other broken promises, TrumpCare cuts Medicaid deeply. As was true of 
the President's campaign, he brought no unity to his attack on 
America's health, and his plan was not even voted on. Indeed, that has 
been followed by Republican efforts to make their proposal even more 
draconian.
  The second 100 days looms even worse as the Trump White House 
continues to be focused on kicking Americans off their coverage and 
making the rest pay more and getting less, saying it intends to bring 
an even more draconian version of its TrumpCare bill back.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans control both the House, the Senate, and the 
administration. They are now, theoretically, the governing party, and 
whatever happens to our healthcare system on their watch will be their 
responsibility.
  So as this administration reaches its 100th day in office, it has a 
choice. It can continue to rack up the failures that it has amassed or 
it can turn the page to constructive cooperation.
  The President can, contrary to his promises, keep trying to take 
health coverage away from the American people and make it more 
expensive, or he can set partisanship aside and work across the aisle 
to make sure the Affordable Care Act works for everyone.
  We ought to be working together to accomplish that objective. He must 
start by ensuring that the promised cost-sharing reduction payments 
under the Affordable Care Act are made. If he does not, millions of 
people will be deeply hurt, the insurance system will be destabilized, 
and Americans across this country will find their policies more 
expensive.
  On jobs, he can continue doing nothing or he can finally show the 
American people a plan to invest in jobs and infrastructure. Send us 
the legislation you promised, Mr. President. And he can keep hiding his 
tax returns from the American people and ducking and weaving when it 
comes to his ties to Russia, or finally draw the curtain back and show 
what he has been hiding and support a bipartisan, independent 
commission to seek the answers Americans deserve and America must have.
  Mr. Speaker, in these first 100 days, if they are a prologue of that 
which is to come, I grieve for us all. America is a great and good 
nation, an exceptional nation and people. We must not, by demagoguery, 
irrationality, and negligence, on the wings of a tweet, allow it to be 
brought low.

                          ____________________




                   THANKING OUR WORLD WAR II VETERANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Bost) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, I had the honor of 
welcoming to Washington, D.C., more than 50 of our Southern Illinois 
veterans. The visit was put together by the Honor Flight of Southern 
Illinois, a nonprofit organization that transports veterans to 
Washington to visit the memorials honoring their service and sacrifice.
  According to the VA, an estimated 640 World War II veterans leave us 
each day. It is time to express our thanks, and that time is running 
short.
  We owe a debt of gratitude to those heroes and those who serve in 
defense of freedom and liberty. I will never forget the opportunity to 
welcome them to this Nation's Capital and thank them for all they have 
done for this country.


         Recognizing McKendree University Women's Bowling Team

  Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, today I proudly also recognize the McKendree 
University women's bowling team for winning the 2017 NCAA Women's 
Bowling Championship. These young women made history by becoming the 
first NCAA Division II program to win that championship.
  The Bearcats' 4-0 triumph was also the first sweep in the 14-year 
history of the event. I extend a heartfelt congratulations to the team 
members, coaching staff, school officials, and family and friends on 
this incredible journey. Southern Illinois is proud of you.
  Go Bearcats.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1015
      POLICY TOWARDS NORTH KOREA NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY CALIBRATED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The Chair 
recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy) for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce two bills 
to enhance our Nation's security and make the American people safer.
  Of all the security challenges that the United States confronts, the 
most serious threat, arguably, stems from North Korea, under its 
dangerous and unpredictable dictator. North Korea, which has the fourth 
largest military in the world, continues to make progress on its 
nuclear and ballistic missiles programs in violation of international 
sanctions.
  Since 2006, North Korea has tested a nuclear device five times. The 
main goal of North Korea's nuclear weapons program is to develop a 
warhead small enough to be mounted on a ballistic missile. 
Unfortunately, North Korea has also shown substantial, even startling, 
progress in its missile programs.
  Since 2014, North Korea has conducted nearly 50 test launches of 
ballistic missiles. North Korea is an imminent threat to our allies 
South Korea and Japan and the nearly 80,000 U.S. troops serving those 
two countries. And as its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles 
programs advance, North Korea poses a rising threat to the United 
States homeland itself.
  The U.S. policy approach to North Korea must be comprehensive and 
carefully calibrated. Miscalculation could result in armed conflict, 
possibly involving the use of nuclear weapons, and cause catastrophic 
loss of life. To be effective, U.S. strategy must be informed by the 
best possible intelligence on

[[Page 5992]]

North Korea's intentions and capabilities.
  North Korea is a difficult intelligence target. It is a secretive 
society where dissent is severely punished. This makes the recruitment 
of human resources inside the country very challenging, and moreover, 
high-level defectors from North Korea with intelligence about the 
regime are rare.
  My first bill would require the Director of National Intelligence to 
create a North Korea-focused integration cell consisting of experts who 
would streamline, synthesize, and synchronize intelligence on North 
Korea so that U.S. policymakers have the best possible information upon 
which to base decisions.
  The cell would seek to ensure that the U.S. Government is collecting 
intelligence on North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, missile 
programs, weapon sales, and other activities that violate U.N. 
sanctions. The cell would also work to make certain that this 
intelligence is efficiently disseminated to the appropriate national 
security policymakers so that it can inform decisionmaking.
  While my first bill is specific to North Korea, my second bill seeks 
to safeguard Americans by promoting security and stability in the Asia 
Pacific region more broadly. This region encompasses about 40 countries 
containing over 60 percent of the world's population, including many of 
our top import and export partners. The region offers the United States 
economic opportunities, but also presents security challenges. Indeed, 
some senior American officials often describe the Asia Pacific as the 
most consequential region for the future of our country.
  Historically, under Presidents of both parties, the U.S. has 
maintained a strong military and diplomatic presence in the region to 
reassure allies and deter adversaries. The core of U.S. strategy has 
been close cooperation with our regional partners. These partnerships 
are an essential component of our effort to confront aggression by 
North Korea, judiciously manage the rise of China, dismantle terrorist 
networks, ensure freedom of navigation in international waters, 
guarantee the free flow of commerce, respond to humanitarian 
emergencies, and promote respect for the rule of law.
  These partnerships, built on mutual trust, are not self-sustaining. 
They require U.S. leadership, energy, and resources. To deepen 
cooperation, my bill would create a commission of U.S. security 
officials and their counterparts from willing regional partner nations. 
The commission would aim to increase military readiness, strengthen 
counterterrorism operations, enhance maritime security, bolster 
cybersecurity, and improve intelligence coordination.
  The commission would send a clear signal to allies and adversaries 
alike that the U.S. commitment to the Asia Pacific region is intensive 
and enduring.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support these 
two bills, which are aimed at addressing the immediate threat posed by 
North Korea, and strengthening our security alliances with key regional 
partners.

                          ____________________




                 PAKISTAN IS PLAYING THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when our forces invaded Afghanistan in 
2001, the goal was simple: remove the Taliban government that sheltered 
the plotters of the 9/11 attacks on America, and destroy al-Qaida.
  Nearly 16 years later, Afghanistan is still a haven for terrorists 
who seek to attack and kill Americans. Since then, the Taliban has 
waged an insurgency in Afghanistan, destabilizing the country, creating 
perfect conditions for terrorists to exploit.
  The Taliban and al-Qaida have launched many of their attacks in 
Afghanistan from Pakistan. Taliban insurgency is stronger today than at 
any other point since 2001. Just last week, a Taliban sneak attack 
killed more than 160 Afghan soldiers, prompting the defense minister 
and army chief of staff to resign.
  But the Taliban don't just stage attacks, they seize territory. The 
Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction said in January 
that 172 Afghan districts are controlled, influenced, or contested by 
the Taliban. Al-Qaida has a long history of loyalty to the Taliban. 
Osama bin Laden swore his allegiance to the Taliban's leader, Mullah 
Omar, even before 9/11. When bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, Ayman 
al-Zawahiri renewed that oath and cemented ties between al-Qaida and 
the Taliban. Wherever the Taliban has influence, we can be sure that 
al-Qaida is not far behind.
  Since 2010, U.S. officials have incorrectly claimed that al-Qaida had 
a small presence in the country limited only to 50 to 100 fighters. 
Then, in 2015, a shocking U.S. raid in Afghanistan uncovered a massive 
al-Qaida training camp, rounding up over 150 al-Qaida terrorists. This 
was more fighters found in one raid than the U.S. officials claimed 
existed in the entire country. And by the end of last year, U.S. 
officials announced that 250 al-Qaida terrorists were killed or 
captured in 2016 alone.
  Along with al-Qaida in Afghanistan, we have the other terrorist 
group, the Haqqani Network. This group is directly linked to al-Qaida 
and the Taliban. The Haqqani Network is responsible for more American 
deaths in the region than any other terrorist group. The Haqqani 
Network attacks inside Afghanistan have been directly traced back to--
you guessed it--Pakistan.
  In fact, in 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, then-chairman of the U.S. 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate: ``The Haqqani 
Network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services 
Intelligence Agency.''
  The truth is that Pakistan has ties to about every terrorist group in 
Afghanistan. And we know that the Taliban is still based in Pakistan 
today. It came as no surprise that when the U.S. drone strike killed 
the leader of the Taliban in 2016, he was--that is right--in Pakistan.
  The laundry list of evidence of Pakistan support for terrorists goes 
on an on. We all remember where al-Qaida leader and America's most 
wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was found and killed: in Pakistan.
  Afghanistan's representative to the U.N. recently told the Security 
Council that Pakistan maintains ties with more than 20 different 
terrorist groups.
  Mr. Speaker, Pakistan is playing us. Pakistan turns a blind eye to 
the terrorist allies, the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network 
fighters in the area. The Pakistan Taliban fighters ended up becoming 
the leaders of the ISIS affiliate in Afghanistan, known as ISIS 
Khorasan province. ISIS announced their Afghan affiliate in January 
2015, and now has entrenched itself in the eastern part of the country.
  For the first time ever, the military dropped its largest non-nuclear 
bomb, the Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, earlier this month on ISIS 
targets in Afghanistan. It is no surprise that Afghanistan is a hotbed 
for terrorist mischief groups, all related to Pakistan. That is what 
Pakistan has always wanted: a weak and divided Afghanistan that 
threatens the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time we reassess our Pakistan policy so that it 
matches Pakistan's behavior in Afghanistan. We need to call Pakistan 
out. We must reduce aid to the two-faced Pakistan Government. We don't 
need to pay them to betray us. We must designate Pakistan as a state 
sponsor of terrorism, and we must remove their major non-NATO ally 
status. In the war on terror, it is crystal clear Pakistan is not on 
America's side.
  And that is just the way it is.

                          ____________________




                         HEALTH CARE ROUND TWO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, what has changed since the last time the 
Republicans attempted to repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act?
  Absolutely nothing. That is right. Nothing has changed.

[[Page 5993]]

  Recent polls show that the Affordable Care Act is more popular than 
ever. Yet, the Republicans still want to get rid of a law that is 
helping to provide our most vulnerable Americans the affordable care 
they need and deserve.
  In my district, Mr. Speaker, 369,000 people who receive health 
coverage from their employers could lose their consumer protection. 
62,000 people covered by Medicare expansion could lose coverage if the 
ACA is repealed. These are the numbers of a few weeks back. It could be 
even worse now.
  This Saturday marks President Trump's 100th day in the White House. 
And this week we have a stacked agenda with tax reform, to pass a 
spending bill, to prevent government shutdown, to talks of health care 
being back in the mix.
  One may think that health care will get lost in the shuffle, but we 
have seen how this administration and the Republicans will not back 
down. They appear committed to getting rid of a law that provides 
quality, affordable health care to millions of Americans young and old.
  The American people elected us to fight an agenda that supports the 
needs of everyday Americans, hardworking Americans. Instead of cutting 
programs like SNAP, Meals on Wheels, the Community Development Block 
Grant program, we should look for ways to grow programs that help build 
stronger neighborhoods block by block.
  Over the weekend, I went to the health fair at Temple University in 
my district. Temple University Hospital has served the city of 
Philadelphia for the last 120 years. It is a job creator and a major 
employer in our community. We should be looking for ways to build up 
the engines that drive investment and grow our economy, not tear them 
down.
  Let me remind you, Republicans want to vote on the healthcare bill 
that gets rid of essential health benefits--for example, coverage for 
emergency rooms, maternity care, and prescription drugs. But because of 
the people, because of you and all of your phone calls, all of your 
emails, all of your letters, their attempt to repeal the healthcare 
bill was stopped.
  This just happened. Yes, they still want to vote on a bill that 
destroys protections for people with preexisting conditions.
  I want to tell you a story of a small-business owner in my district 
named Andrea. Andrea owns a small pet shop, Spot's--The Place for Paws, 
in Narberth, Pennsylvania. Andrea left her Philadelphia law practice to 
pursue her dream of owning a small business. Andrea has type 1 
diabetes. Without the ACA, she would not be able to get well-priced 
coverage that covers her health expenses and medication and allows her 
to keep her shop open.
  Andrea's story is like that of so many Americans across the country. 
We cannot support legislation that makes life harder for those trying 
the hardest to get ahead.
  Last week, I visited another wonderful resident in my district, 
Sister Mary Scullion. She is truly an inspirational individual who has 
made it her mission to help the most vulnerable citizens. Sister 
Scullion made a comment that stuck in my head: ``Public housing is the 
best way to cure and prevent homelessness for the future.''
  In thinking about how we view our healthcare system, I am reminded of 
my conversation with Sister Scullion. We need to work together to lift 
our people out of tough situations. We need to work together to provide 
everyone in our neighborhoods with the tools and resources they need to 
succeed.
  As I mentioned, this Saturday marks President Trump's 100th day in 
office. Interestingly enough, the President will be in Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania--a place that I have worked for many years.
  What do we have to lose under this administration? Well, don't we 
have to lose a lot?
  Affordable housing, Meals on Wheels for our seniors, before- and 
afterschool programs for our kids, and the list goes on.
  Well, we have a lot to lose, Mr. President. We will continue to make 
our voices heard. The resistance is alive, and the resistance is 
working.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1030
                        RECOGNIZING NANCY BILLET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize 
Nancy Billet, the office manager and financial administrator of my 
Washington, D.C., office. After working for three Members of Congress 
over a span of 36 years, Nancy will retire on Friday, and she will be 
missed by all.
  Nancy grew up on Maryland's Eastern Shore, and she never thought 
about working in politics. After graduating from Chesapeake College, 
she and a classmate moved to the D.C. suburbs, and Nancy found her way 
to Capitol Hill.
  In 1981, shortly after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as President, Nancy 
began her career as a staff assistant with Congressman Phil Crane, a 
Republican from Illinois. She worked for Congressman Crane, a member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, for almost 14 years as a staff assistant, 
legislative assistant, and office manager.
  She joined a softball team that played on The Mall after work hours, 
and that is where she would eventually meet her husband, Barry. They 
got married, had a baby boy, and Nancy continued working, but only 
part-time. She also continued her education with evening classes at 
Northern Virginia Community College and proceeded to receive a 
bachelor's degree from George Mason University.
  After the birth of their second son, Nancy would return to the Hill 
full-time after the 1994 election. In January 1995, Nancy was hired as 
an office manager for Congressman Phil English, a Republican from 
Pennsylvania. Nancy worked with Congressman English until his 
retirement in January of 2009.
  When he heard about her retirement, former Congressman Phil English 
said Nancy was a ``fabulous source of stability and good humor in an 
office where we were always a kite dancing in a hurricane. Your 
gracious manner and personal generosity made many difficult days 
tolerable and the cause possible to pursue. You brightened the lives of 
all you worked with, all you touched.''
  Congressman English went on to say that Nancy's consistent patience 
with constituents, interns, and any individual who came through the 
door was legendary. I couldn't agree more.
  Nancy came to work in my office in 2009, and we have been so blessed 
to have her on staff. I was able to hit the ground running as a 
freshman Member with such a knowledgeable veteran Hill staffer on my 
team. Nancy can master the most difficult tasks with ease, but it is 
her pleasant personality that I will miss most. I have been fortunate 
to have her on staff, and her shoes will not be easily filled.
  Her institutional knowledge is remarkable. Nancy has had a front-row 
seat to so much change in the Capitol, from using an IBM typewriter 
with a correctable ribbon to floppy disc computers, to today's laptops, 
iPads, and smartphones; from busy phone booths in the Longworth 
Building outside of the Ways and Means Committee to everyone talking on 
their own personal cell phone in every hallway and every office; from 
easy access to the buildings to the barriers put in place after the 
September 11 attacks; and all the administrations to come and go. Nancy 
was employed for Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill 
Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and now under Donald Trump.
  Mr. Speaker, to say we will miss Nancy is an understatement, but I 
know she is looking forward to spending time with her husband, Barry, 
and her three sons--Brian, Will, and Robby--and the rest of the family.
  Nancy, on behalf of Penny and me and all the staff, we wish you the 
best for a well-deserved retirement. On behalf of the Congress of the 
United States, thank you for your nearly four decades of service to the 
people's House. Thank you for all your dedication to serving the 
American people.

[[Page 5994]]



                          ____________________




                           ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the Armenian community 
in commemorating the 102nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
  On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Empire began committing atrocities 
that would result in the first genocide of the 20th century. Between 
1915 and 1923, 1\1/2\ million Armenians were systematically deported 
from their homes and sent to their death on marches through the Syrian 
Desert. That is a fact.
  My district, located in California's San Joaquin Valley, is the land 
of William Saroyan and the resting place of Soghomon Terlirian, a hero 
of the Armenian people. It is also home to the only Armenian genocide 
monument on a college campus in the Nation at Fresno State University, 
my alma mater. It is a campus that has a storied Armenian Studies 
program known throughout the country and is a sister university to the 
American University of Armenia.
  The San Joaquin Valley of California is also one of the earliest 
settling places for thousands of survivors and their families as part 
of the diaspora as a result of the genocide. Many still live there 
today and call the valley their home.
  I was honored to visit Armenia this past year to meet with its people 
and leaders. I was truly humbled to visit the Armenian genocide 
memorial in Yerevan. We have seen religious and civic leaders from all 
around the world recognize the Armenian genocide and ensure that this 
tragedy is never ever forgotten.
  I am very disappointed and saddened that another year has passed 
without the President of the United States or the Congress recognizing 
the events of 1915 as genocide. We cannot move forward free of genocide 
without recognizing the first genocide of the 20th century. So I ask my 
colleagues to please join me in recognizing the lives of 1\1/2\ million 
victims and their families.
  It is always said that now is not the right time because of our 
relationship with Turkey as they become, like this country, less 
democratic as a result of recent elections. I reject that view. If we 
do not recognize the genocide now, then when?
  I stand with Armenians all over the world to say ``menk' ch'yenk' 
morranum.'' We will not forget.


                       Recognizing Paul Jamushian

  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service and 
advocacy of Mr. Paul Jamushian, as the 16th Congressional District's 
Hero of the Month in California.
  As a descendant of both martyrs and survivors of the Armenian 
genocide, Paul has been an advocate for the Armenian cause and for 
genocide recognition for over 50 years. As a member of the Armenian 
National Committee of America, he has led efforts throughout the 
country to advocate and educate residents and people of the atrocities 
of 1915.
  I have been proud to call Paul a friend and a partner in what has 
been a mutual commitment to ensure that the Armenian genocide is never 
forgotten. His efforts have led to the Armenian genocide being formally 
recognized by numerous cities, counties, and State governing bodies.
  While in my district, his efforts, along with those of numerous 
others in the Armenian community, have led to this beautiful Armenian 
genocide monument on the campus of Fresno State University as you see 
here.
  Paul is the embodiment of the community of Armenian Americans 
throughout the country who have not only survived, but have gone on to 
thrive post-genocide and contribute time and time again to our country. 
It is my honor to recognize Paul as the Hero of the Month for the 16th 
Congressional District in California this month, especially during this 
week of remembrance for the 102nd anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
  Let us never ever forget.

                          ____________________




         OPIOID EPIDEMIC FUNDING IN THE 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, last week, the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services announced the first round of 
grant funding for the 21st Century Cures Act.
  As a cosponsor and supporter of Cures and a Member who represents 
communities in Pennsylvania directly impacted by the opioid crisis, 
this was an encouraging and welcomed step toward combating this 
epidemic. This first round of funding will support prevention and 
treatment initiatives for those individuals in need.
  In particular, these resources will assist our local health centers 
that serve the uninsured or underinsured and are leading the fight on 
the front lines against this epidemic. This is one of many steps that 
will need to take place to combat this crisis.
  As the debate here in the House on efforts to improve health care 
continues, this announcement serves as a reminder of the positive and 
good we can do when we work together to deliver solutions that 
strengthen our communities. Moving forward, I will continue to work 
with my colleagues to advance and support policies to address addiction 
prevention and treatment.


      Congratulating Winners of 2017 Congressional Art Competition

  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
congratulate students in Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional District.
  Yesterday, my office was proud to announce the winners of the 2017 
Congressional Art Competition. As a member of the STEAM Caucus and a 
strong supporter of funding for the arts and humanities, I always 
encourage students across my district to participate in the 
competition.
  This year, Hannah from Conestoga High School, was awarded first place 
for her piece, entitled, ``Three Cranes''; second place went to Rachel 
from Henderson High School; third place was awarded to Elizabeth from 
Conestoga High School; and fourth place was awarded to Juliet from 
Phoenixville Area High School.
  The creativity displayed this year and every year by students from 
our community shows the depth of hard work and talent of our region's 
students. I congratulate and thank each student who submitted their 
work to the competition.


                              NIH Funding

  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, during the recess period, 
I had the opportunity to host townhalls and meet with constituents to 
hear about the issues and concerns that matter to them.
  One of the recurring topics of concern that I kept hearing was about 
potential cuts to Federal medical research funding, in particular, NIH 
cuts from the President's skinny budget.
  We made great progress last Congress toward strengthening the NIH, 
most notably through passage of the 21st Century Cures Act. In addition 
to increasing funding, we have made positive structural changes to 
ensure that every dollar invested is being used effectively and 
efficiently.
  The NIH and medical research represent our best hope to find cures, 
improve care, and solve the diseases and conditions that affect 
millions of Americans. We should not reduce one penny of NIH funding, 
not one penny. The work and research of the NIH is simply too valuable.


                            Fentanyl Crisis

  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, because of the fentanyl 
crisis we are facing, I have cosponsored the Synthetic Trafficking and 
Overdose Prevention Act, also known as the STOP Act. The bill aims to 
prevent synthetic drugs, such as fentanyl, from being shipped to the 
United States by drug traffickers.
  Illicitly produced synthetic opioids have strong associations with 
countries like China and India, where there is little to no regulation, 
and fentanyl and its analogues are manufactured in both small- and 
large-scale production laboratories.

[[Page 5995]]

  The STOP Act would require foreign postal operators to send advanced 
electronic data to the USPS, the Postal Service, for packages imported 
into the United States. This would enable Customs and Border Protection 
and other agencies to target high-risk shipments for screening.
  This bill also gives the Postal Service more authority to scan 
arriving mail from places that are currently exempt from CBP protocol, 
helping to stop these packages from reaching U.S. borders in the first 
place. It is a vigilant Federal response, including the STOP Act, which 
is crucial to reversing the tide of addiction, helping to save lives in 
our community and across the country.


                               Burn Pits

  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, burn pits, which are found 
on military bases, create substances that can be toxic. Tires, 
batteries, human waste, medical waste, and other garbage items are put 
into pits and set on fire, sometimes after being soaked with jet fuel. 
Burn pits were regularly used in Iraq and Afghanistan, so veterans of 
these wars are particularly at risk.
  My colleagues and I have introduced legislation that says, if a 
veteran does not have visible wounds, it is often difficult to provide 
the proof that VA needs to process a claim--but it shouldn't be that 
burdensome for a veteran who has sacrificed so much for our country--to 
get the treatment they need when they come home. There are many reports 
of veterans who believe their illness was caused by their exposure to 
burn pits who have not been able to get the VA to provide them with 
coverage.
  This epidemic is being compared to the major problem veterans who 
were exposed to Agent Orange had when they returned home from the 
Vietnam war, and we cannot let that happen again. So we have introduced 
legislation because veterans who are exposed to burn pits and 
subsequently have complications need to have the right diagnosis and 
treatment as soon as possible.
  This bill would create a Center of Excellence at the U.S. Department 
of Veterans Affairs, which would provide research to be able to 
properly address the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of these 
veterans. It is important the men and women who dedicate their lives to 
protecting our country can access the care they need when they return 
home.

                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
  Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 43 minutes a.m.), the House stood in 
recess.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1200
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker at noon.

                          ____________________




                                 PRAYER

  Reverend Michael D. Gutierrez, St. John the Baptist Catholic Church, 
Baldwin Park, California, offered the following prayer:
  God, source of goodness and mercy, today we pray that You touch the 
minds and hearts of the Members of Congress.
  Grant them wisdom and insight to make effective decisions that 
benefit the common good of our Nation, respecting all ethnicities, 
genders, and faith traditions.
  We pray, Lord, that our Representatives may listen to one another so 
that they may seek what is good and true for all people. We ask You, 
Lord, to guide them and grant them courage to act in peace and justice 
so that other nations may see the goodness of our Nation and our 
leaders.
  God, may this day be a continual exchange of ideas and prosperous 
debate, that people may see that our Representatives are being guided 
by You, God, and that Your wisdom be reflected in their decisions.
  We lift up this prayer in Your holy name.
  Amen.

                          ____________________




                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's 
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 
I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the 
Journal.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the 
Journal.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on 
the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER. Will the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) come 
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mrs. BEATTY led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation 
     under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

                          ____________________




                 WELCOMING FATHER MICHAEL D. GUTIERREZ

  The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Napolitano) is recognized for 1 minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce to the 
House and bid welcome to Father Mike Gutierrez today. He is the pastor 
at St. John the Baptist Catholic Church and school in the city of 
Baldwin Park in California. Thank you, Father, for coming from Baldwin 
Park and for the wonderful prayer.
  Father Mike, as he is known--he doesn't use Gutierrez--leads a parish 
of 10,000 families with a focus on Filipino and Hispanic communities. 
He has increased participation in religious and educational programs, 
youth and family ministry, and allows the church to bring attention and 
encourage activism on issues impacting the area.
  He is an integral part of the 32nd District's, my district, annual 
immigration clinic event and is known for his joviality and smiling 
consistently.
  Since my move to the California 32nd, he has been helpful in many 
issues and events that I have put forth, recognized by the California 
State Legislature and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles for support of 
social issues.
  Father, thank you. Thank you for today's blessing and for the work 
you do to spread and promote Gospel throughout the San Gabriel Valley.
  May God continue to bless you and your ministry.

                          ____________________




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair will entertain up to 
15 further requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

                          ____________________




                  AN ADMINISTRATION MARKED BY STRENGTH

  (Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday marks 100 
days in office for President Donald Trump, an important milestone for 
Congress and this administration.
  Since being sworn in, President Trump has stood strong, upholding his 
pledge to protect the American people in the face of world threats. He 
has stood up to the dangerous regime in North Korea by supporting our 
allies in the region and deploying the THAAD missile defense system. He 
took swift,

[[Page 5996]]

decisive action against the dictatorship in Syria by using military 
force and economic sanctions after the brutal dictatorship executed a 
chemical attack murdering innocent civilians.
  Additionally, the President has taken strong action to win the global 
war on terrorism by destroying ISIL-controlled tunnels in Afghanistan.
  I appreciate President Trump for being a strong President and a model 
of Ronald Reagan, promoting peace through strength. Congratulations to 
him on a remarkable first 100 days in office.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the President to protect 
American families while successfully creating jobs.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget 
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.

                          ____________________




                        PRESIDENT TRUMP PROMISES

  (Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, throughout the Presidential campaign, 
Donald Trump promised to create good-paying manufacturing jobs, but 
nearly 100 days into his administration, we are learning that this is 
just another broken promise.
  Since taking office, President Trump has failed to use American steel 
for the Keystone pipeline, proposed $2.5 billion in cuts in the Labor 
Department, which will reduce funding for critical job training in 
advanced manufacturing, and proposed complete elimination of the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a Federal initiative that provides 
critical matching grants to support regional manufacturing economies.
  If President Trump were serious about putting working people first, 
he would work with Democrats to pass bills we have already introduced 
to strengthen manufacturing, bills like Make It In America 
Manufacturing Communities Act that I have introduced to revitalize 
manufacturing economies and legislation to modernize and strengthen Buy 
America provisions.
  If Donald Trump wants to keep the promises he made to working people, 
then he needs to start working with Democrats to deliver results. We 
are ready to go. We have introduced bills to strengthen American 
manufacturing. All we need now is a real partner in the White House, a 
President who is more concerned with results than TV ratings.

                          ____________________




       CONGRATULATING CONGRESSMAN STEVE STIVERS ON HIS PROMOTION

  (Mr. WENSTRUP asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues in 
the Ohio delegation, to congratulate Congressman Steve Stivers on his 
promotion from colonel to brigadier general of the Ohio National Guard.
  Ohio is a State rich in history and a long list of American leaders 
who call it home. Steve's promotion marks another milestone in our 
great State's history.
  Steve Stivers, a native of Ripley, Ohio, and proud Ohio State 
Buckeye, is the first brigadier general since Rutherford B. Hayes to 
represent Ohio in Congress.
  Rutherford B. Hayes represented my district, the Second District of 
Ohio, from 1865 to 1867, before going on to serve as Governor of Ohio 
and then President of the United States.
  On behalf of the Ohio delegation, we offer congratulations and our 
gratitude for Steve's service.
  Mr. Speaker, Steve Stivers' leadership adds to our State's storied 
legacy of servant leaders and citizen soldiers. Our State and our 
Nation are fortunate that Steve Stivers has dedicated his life to 
defending the cause of freedom both in the ranks of the National Guard 
and in the Halls of Congress.

                          ____________________




       CONGRATULATING CONGRESSMAN STEVE STIVERS ON HIS PROMOTION

  (Mrs. BEATTY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my Ohio colleagues to 
congratulate Congressman Steve Stivers on his promotion from colonel to 
brigadier general of the Ohio Army National Guard.
  His promotion comes after more than 30 years in the National Guard. 
He is now one of the highest ranking National Guard members to also 
serve as a Member of Congress. Congressman Stivers served the United 
States overseas during Operation Iraqi Freedom in Kuwait, Iraq, and 
Djibouti where he was awarded the Bronze Star for leadership throughout 
the deployment.
  We are proud to have him leading the National Guard soldiers who 
protect us at home and abroad.
  Congressman Stivers, on behalf of the Ohio delegation and the 
citizens we represent, congratulations on this distinguished honor. Mr. 
Speaker, I am proud to call Steve a colleague and Ohioan and a friend.

                          ____________________




       CONGRATULATING CONGRESSMAN STEVE STIVERS ON HIS PROMOTION

  (Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in 
congratulating Steve Stivers on his promotion to brigadier general. I 
served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States Air Force, and I can tell 
you that every officer who puts on the uniform, in the quiet moments of 
their own minds, they dream of the day that maybe someday they might 
aspire to become a flag officer or to attain the rank of general 
officer.
  I can tell you that, from my perspective, it is a lot easier to get 
elected to the House of Representatives than it is to earn the rank of 
general--at least that is what my experience shows. I can tell you, I 
never served under Steve Stivers and his command, but if his military 
leadership and performance is anything like his performance here in the 
House, he is going to represent the State of Ohio and our Nation very 
well.
  Congratulations to my colleague, Steve Stivers. God bless you, and 
thank you for your service to our country.

                          ____________________




    NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN EXPENSIVE WALL

  (Mr. HIGGINS of New York asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. HIGGINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, while the President continues 
to drone on about his southern border wall, a wall that he told America 
Mexico would pay for--which, of course, they will not--a wall that the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology reports will cost Americans $40 
billion, there is no discussion of a promised $1 trillion 
infrastructure bill.
  This week, a Reuters report named my hometown of Buffalo, New York, 
as among the most dangerous lead hotspots in America. The lead 
waterlines in places like Buffalo, New York, and Flint, Michigan, are 
more than 100 years old, and they need to be replaced. Forty percent of 
kids in lead hotspots could suffer from cognitive delays and other 
neurological problems.
  Mr. Speaker, the President needs to stop talking about an expensive 
and ineffective wall and start taking action on removing the toxic 
levels of lead from our Nation's drinking water systems, particularly 
in places like Buffalo, New York, and Flint, Michigan.

                          ____________________




       CONGRATULATING CONGRESSMAN STEVE STIVERS ON HIS PROMOTION

  (Mr. RENACCI asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, today I want to congratulate my colleague, 
my friend, and fellow Buckeye, Congressman Steve Stivers, on his 
promotion to brigadier general. I am thankful to

[[Page 5997]]

be joined by my colleagues in the House and our Senators, Senator Brown 
and Senator Portman, as we applaud our colleague.
  He is the first Ohio National Guard officer in more than 100 years to 
concurrently serve as a Member of Congress and one of the few people in 
U.S. history to have held both positions simultaneously. Congressman 
Stivers joined the National Guard in 1985, and has served for over 30 
years.
  I, and many other Ohioans, appreciate his years of service, both in 
the military and in the United States Congress.
  Congratulations, Brigadier General Stivers, and thank you for your 
service.

                          ____________________




                    EXTEND CONRAD 30 WAIVER PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCHNEIDER asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conrad 30 
Waiver program set to expire at the end of this week. This program 
helps match medically underserved communities, both rural and urban, 
with much-needed doctors. Currently, foreign medical students studying 
here using J-1 visas must return to their home country and wait 2 years 
before they can apply to work in the United States. This makes no 
sense.
  The American medical education system attracts the best and the 
brightest and produces the best medical graduates in the world. When so 
many of our communities are struggling to attract medical 
professionals, we should be creating incentives for these newly trained 
doctors to stay.
  Through the Conrad 30 program, a limited number of new physicians can 
stay if they can commit to work 3 years in underserved communities. 
Continuing the Conrad 30 Waiver program is a commonsense step towards 
helping underserved Americans. I am proud to introduce H.R. 2141 with 
Congressman Issa of California to extend and expand this program.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the same.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1215
          CONGRATULATING CONGRESSMAN STIVERS ON HIS PROMOTION

  (Mr. LATTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my Ohio colleagues to 
congratulate our colleague Steve Stivers on this great momentous 
occasion of being promoted to brigadier general.
  I have known my friend since our days in the Ohio General Assembly. I 
remember when he was deployed for his service that he so unselfishly 
gave to his Nation in uniform.
  With Steve, you can go back in history. It was 242 years ago last 
week, on April 18, 1775, that Paul Revere, Dawes, and Prescott rode 
across the countryside and said that the regulars were out.
  It was on the morning of April 19 that men left their shops, left 
their plows, and went to that call. It was that citizen soldier that 
went out there to make sure that this Nation attained the freedom that 
we have today.
  From the National Guard and all of our men and women that are serving 
in uniform across all the services, it is because of them that we have 
the right to stand here today.
  I applaud Congressman Stivers on his promotion to brigadier. And we, 
along with our colleagues in the Senate, congratulate him. Mr. Speaker, 
I thank him very much for his service.

                          ____________________




                     RESOLUTION HONORING EARTH DAY

  (Mr. McEACHIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the proud sponsor of the 
resolution honoring Earth Day.
  For more than 40 years, people have come together on Earth Day to 
support protections for our air, water, and land, and to increase 
appreciation for Mother Earth.
  But every day, not just on Earth Day, we must renew our commitment to 
preserving our planet.
  One way to do this is by continuing to build upon the Paris Agreement 
and other efforts. That is why countless Americans marched last week 
for science, and that is why even more will turn out for this weekend's 
Climate March.
  It is also the reason why tomorrow I will co-announce the creation of 
the United for Climate Task Force, a voice in Congress for communities 
of color, low-income communities, and other marginalized groups 
disproportionately impacted by environmental injustice.
  Alongside my colleagues Congresswoman Jayapal and Congresswoman 
Barragan, we will promote a Federal agenda that stands for 
environmental justice.
  The task force will strive to protect the rights of all to clean air, 
safe water, healthy communities, equal protection from the 
environmental and health hazards, and guaranteed access to the 
decisionmaking process.
  Like those who celebrated Earth Day in 1970, we have a shared 
responsibility to ensure that future generations inherit a livable, 
sustainable, and ecologically rich planet.

                          ____________________




 CONGRATULATING CONGRESSMAN STIVERS AND CONGRESSMAN WENSTRUP ON THEIR 
                               PROMOTIONS

  (Mr. TIBERI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two Members of our 
congressional delegation, and two of my friends, Congressman Steve 
Stivers and Congressman Brad Wenstrup, upon their military promotions.
  Now Brigadier General Stivers in the Ohio National Guard, and Colonel 
Brad Wenstrup in the United States Army Reserve, they both have served 
their country beyond the boundaries of their district.
  Today I am humbled and honored to join my colleagues in 
congratulating them on their distinguished public and military careers.
  Congressman Stivers, 30 years ago as a young Buckeye, assumed the 
title--one very important to him and to us--as citizen soldier.
  In 1998, Congressman Wenstrup joined the U.S. Army Reserve after 
already establishing himself as a doctor in the Cincinnati area.
  To Congressman Stivers and Congressman Wenstrup, as faithful 
Representatives to your constituents, as members of our military, and 
veterans of the Iraq war and recipients of the Bronze Star, you have 
always put service to our country first.
  Thank you from a grateful Congress and a grateful nation. 
Congratulations on your respective promotions.

                          ____________________




                    PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HEALTH CARE

  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, well, here we are, 100 days into President 
Trump's Presidency, and all we have seen is this President break the 
promises that he made when he campaigned for President.
  He promised, for example, that we would have ``everyone covered with 
health care.'' Everyone. Then as President, he broke that promise.
  Last month we saw him put forth his failed and terrible healthcare 
bill, TrumpCare, which would kick 24 million people off their health 
care. And even for those who would receive health care, they would pay 
more for less coverage: higher deductibles, higher prescription costs, 
no guarantee of hospitalization coverage or other essential benefits.
  He is not looking out for the middle class. TrumpCare 2.0 is even 
worse, taking away a guarantee that a person with a preexisting 
condition can get essential lifesaving health care.
  President Trump, I just have one message: Stop it. Stop. Turn back 
from

[[Page 5998]]

this terrible path you are taking us on. Ensure that all Americans have 
health care. Work with Democrats and Republicans to fix the problems we 
see in the Affordable Care Act, but stop this terrible path that you 
are taking this country on.

                          ____________________




                        IN MEMORY OF DAN COBORN

  (Mr. EMMER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of 
Minnesota's very own Dan Coborn.
  Dan Coborn, a native son of the St. Cloud community, recently passed, 
but his memory will live on.
  Dan will be remembered as an executive who helped his family's 
business grow and succeed. He will be remembered as a loving husband 
and father whose wife and five children meant the world to him.
  Perhaps most importantly, Dan Coborn will be remembered for his 
charity and generosity. Over the span of his life, Dan Coborn gave back 
to a number of charities that included the St. Cloud Area Family YMCA, 
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Central Minnesota, and the Boys and Girls 
Clubs of Central Minnesota.
  In addition to financially giving back to these charities, he also 
gave his time by serving as a board member of the St. Cloud Hospital 
and the Sauk Rapids-Rice Schools, in addition to serving as a founding 
member of the United Way of Central Minnesota.
  Dan Coborn was a hero in our community, and his passing is a massive 
loss to us all. I wish his family peace during this difficult time, and 
I promise his life's work will not be forgotten.

                          ____________________




               PRESIDENT TRUMP'S 100 DAYS AND HEALTH CARE

  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, across the board, the President's first 100 
days have been marked by nothing but broken promises.
  Instead of creating jobs, he has made it a priority to repeatedly 
push for a TrumpCare bill that will increase costs for families and rip 
away care from more than 24 million people.
  The American people have made it clear time and time again that 
TrumpCare is a bad bill, but the President refuses to listen.
  He and congressional Republicans remain intent on pushing through 
legislation that undermines the care of people, like a social worker in 
my district in Sacramento who before the Affordable Care Act, went into 
debt in order to pay for a few routine medical tests.
  The President should spend some time thinking about our country's 
future instead of taking reckless actions that put the health and well-
being of American families on the line.

                          ____________________




                             THE IRAN DEAL

  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, after more than a year, the Obama 
administration's Iran nuclear deal remains deeply unpopular.
  At the time of the agreement, the American people believed they had 
given up too much, and they were right. We already knew the 
administration had paid cash in exchange for American prisoners, but 
this week we learned from an investigation by Politico that the Obama 
administration was also not truthful about the Iranian prisoners we 
released.
  These prisoners were not ``civilians accused of trade violations,'' 
as the administration had claimed. They were men who posed a threat to 
our national security, accused of supplying Iran with materials for 
their weapons program.
  It had taken hundreds of hours for our law enforcement and 
intelligence services to track down and build cases against these men, 
and the Obama administration was willing to undo all of that to use 
these men as a bargaining chip.
  Undermining our national security is not in the best interest of our 
country, nor is being dishonest with the American people.
  As we move forward, we must be clear-eyed and vigilant with the 
Iranian regime and its intentions while supporting and strengthening 
our intelligence community. That is a path towards a nuclear-free Iran.

                          ____________________




     THE IMPACT OF STOPGAP SPENDING BILLS ON STATES AND LOCALITIES

  (Mrs. TORRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, it looks like Congress has avoided another 
government shutdown for now. We will probably pass another short-term 
spending bill or two before this latest stopgap bill runs out, 
threatening to bring us to the brink once again.
  This is no way to govern. As a former mayor and State legislator, I 
know that our States and cities need to be able to plan ahead. They 
can't do that if Federal funding is up in the air and subject to the 
latest political tug of war.
  If we expect 50 States to pass a budget every year, there is no 
reason Congress can't do the same. It is time for Congress and the 
White House to stop playing games and to do the job that we were sent 
to Washington to do.

                          ____________________




              RECOGNIZING WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DAY

  (Mr. COLLINS of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of 
World Intellectual Property Day.
  Strong intellectual property protections are grounded in the 
Constitution and have never been more critical to our economic success 
and culture of innovation than they are today.
  IP industries contribute more than $6 trillion to our economy 
annually and support more than 45 million American jobs.
  In my home State of Georgia, there are an estimated 1.9 million IP-
related jobs that contribute $30 billion per year in manufacturing 
exports.
  IP protections undergird our economy by promoting competitiveness, 
ensuring good-paying jobs, and rewarding ideas that have value.
  In Georgia, which is now the third largest State for film production 
in the Nation, as well as the home to software companies, ``payment 
processor alley,'' musicians, and video game designers, strong 
intellectual property rights mean that our State can continue to grow 
and thrive.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to join me in recognizing 
World IP Day and the importance of intellectual property protections at 
home and abroad.

                          ____________________




            PRESIDENT TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS AND HEALTH CARE

  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, for 7 years, Republicans have talked about 
repealing the Affordable Care Act and replacing it with something 
better.
  And then in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, 
Republicans offered a plan that would have raised premiums, raised 
deductibles, and taken away health care from 24 million Americans.
  The Trump-Republican proposal was a cowardly cynical effort to lower 
taxes on the richest Americans, strip away insurance protections from 
hardworking families, and to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid. Their 
plan would make Americans pay more to get much less.
  When this horrible deal failed, President Trump did what he does 
best: he lashed out. He lashed out at the American people, threatening 
to stop critical cost-sharing health insurance subsidies that ensure 
the sickest and some of the poorest Americans can afford health care.
  Health care, Mr. Speaker, is not a game. It is a matter of life and 
death

[[Page 5999]]

for millions of Americans. On health care and every other issue, 
President Trump's first 100 days have been nothing more than a string 
of broken promises, empty words, and extravagant lies.

                          ____________________




              PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing President Trump attempt to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act, both breaking his own promises and 
making it worse for American families.
  He promised to protect Americans with preexisting conditions, but any 
State could allow insurers to raise premiums for Americans with 
preexisting conditions and make their insurance too expensive to 
afford. Any State could jeopardize access to mental health, emergency, 
maternal, and prescription drug coverage. And any State could charge 
older workers an age tax that would devastate middle class families.
  The proposals will steal $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid in 
exchange for giveaways to the very wealthy and corporations.
  The President and Republicans are turning their backs both on their 
own rhetoric and the real needs and lives of American families.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1230
                      BIG TALK AND BROKEN PROMISES

  (Mr. SOTO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, big talk and broken promises, that is what we 
have seen.
  As Trump's first 100 days come to a close, we see desperate times are 
leading to desperate measures. First, there is a push to revive 
TrumpCare. Really? Twenty-four million Americans would be kicked off 
health insurance in the first year, and there would be 15 to 20 percent 
increases in premiums according to the Congressional Budget Office. The 
big change to get a compromise is taking away essential benefits and 
preexisting conditions, the foundation of making sure Americans have 
health care.
  Second, we see Trump's threats to defund the subsidies. This is a 
blatant violation of law. Seven million Americans would lose health 
care immediately if that happened.
  Third, we see Trump's threats to cut Medicaid and Medicare by $1 
trillion. Block grants will mean cuts to senior's health care, cuts to 
children's health care.
  With these 100 days coming to a close, we see Trump as the least 
popular, least productive President in modern history.
  While Trump is breaking his promises, our constituents are depending 
on us to keep ours.

                          ____________________




                     REJECT ATTEMPTS TO FEARMONGER

  (Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, every day, we wake up and we have a choice of 
how we can look at the world: through the murkiness of fear or through 
the clarity of truth. I challenge you to choose clarity, choose a 
perspective that is grounded in truth and in love.
  Today, President Trump announced the opening of the Victims of 
Immigration Crime Engagement Office, or VOICE, an office that will spew 
propaganda highlighting crimes committed by immigrants as opposed to 
equally harmful crimes committed by nonimmigrants. It is a waste of 
taxpayer money that will manipulate law enforcement data in an attempt 
to play on fears and anxieties.
  I am countering the opening of VOICE with the Saved By American 
Immigrants National Task Force, SAINT. The SAINT task force will 
collect and share stories of the countless immigrants who have saved 
Americans lives through heroic acts.
  I am calling for stories like the story of Maytham Alshadood, a 
Coloradan who grew up in Baghdad. He aspired to be veterinarian and 
began his studies, worked with the American Army as a translator, and 
had to leave because of the increase in violence. He came under a 
special immigrant visa. He started school in America. He is now a 
registered nurse, saving and transforming lives in America every day, 
including those of veterans.
  Let us reject attempts to fearmonger and tear apart American 
families, families that are just like ours, families that are ours.

                          ____________________




                       FIX THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, 53 percent of Americans disapprove of 
President Trump's service to this Nation in this first 100 days. I 
didn't say Members of Congress. I didn't say party. I said 53 percent 
of Americans disagree, and I understand why: a healthcare promise that 
did not come to fruition; families are now looking, with his potential 
bill, to higher healthcare costs for our working families; 24 million 
more Americans are off of insurance.
  What about the age tax for hardworking Americans? Americans 50 to 64 
years old will be paying upwards of $12,000 to $14,000 for their 
premium.
  The last insult is to those hardworking Americans who now receive 
Medicare by deleting, depleting, taking away, and destroying $100 
million from the Medicare trust fund.
  There is no other answer. There is no other answer than disapproval, 
because why would anyone who leads this Nation destroy the very health 
care, the very arm of opportunity and rest that Americans have when 
they become sick?
  I think the disapproval is probably too low. Let us fix the 
healthcare system. Let us not destroy it.

                          ____________________




               COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

                                              Office of the Clerk,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 26, 2017.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     The Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in 
     Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the Clerk received the following message 
     from the Secretary of the Senate on April 26, 2017, at 9:16 
     a.m.:
       Appointments:
       Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native 
     Children.
       With best wishes, I am,
           Sincerely,
     Karen L. Haas.

                          ____________________




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1695, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 
                SELECTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 275 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 275

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1695) to amend title 17, United States Code, 
     to provide additional responsibilities for the Register of 
     Copyrights, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a

[[Page 6000]]

     substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-13. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolution 254 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 275, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring 
forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides 
for consideration of H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection 
and Accountability Act of 2017.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. The rule also 
provides for a motion to recommit and makes in order amendments by 
Representatives Deutch and Chu.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee had the opportunity to hear from 
Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member John 
Conyers. Their testimony reflected the strong bipartisan support for 
this legislation and the work both Members have invested in moving it 
forward.
  I personally thank Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and 
the Judiciary Committee staff on both the majority and minority side 
for their work on this legislation.
  As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity to 
participate in the committee markup where we debated numerous 
amendments and enjoyed a thorough discussion of this bill. The 
Judiciary Committee ultimately adopted an amendment by my colleague 
from Texas, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, to strengthen the bill. H.R. 
1695 passed the Judiciary Committee in a show of overwhelming 
bipartisan support by a vote of 27-1.
  The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is 
supported by numerous outside groups, including the American 
Conservative Union, SAG-AFTRA, the AFL-CIO, the Council for Citizens 
Against Government Waste, CreativeFuture, the Motion Picture 
Association of America, the Gospel Music Association, the American 
Chemical Society, the Church Music Publishers Association, Oracle, and 
many, many others. These groups represent only a sampling of the broad 
support behind this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as you can tell, H.R. 1695 has brought together many 
groups of people who don't traditionally have similar interests. From 
creators to labor organizations to conservative groups, the diversity 
of support behind this legislation speaks to its significance in the 
copyright industry and to our economy as a whole.
  H.R. 1695 also enjoys the public support of our two former Registers 
of Copyright, individuals who filled the very position this bill seeks 
to address. Former Registers Marybeth Peters and Ralph Oman have both 
made clear their belief in the importance of an ``independent copyright 
advice straight and true from the expert agency'' to Congress.
  These former Registers correctly point out that this bill addresses a 
``structural, not personal or political'' issue between the Library of 
Congress and the Copyright Office. Despite what some may say, this is 
what the bill simply does.
  H.R. 1695 is a necessary first step toward any larger efforts toward 
modernizing the Copyright Office. It helps ensure that the Register can 
implement policy and advise Congress effectively, and this legislation 
will ultimately help strengthen our copyright system. This is 
particularly relevant today, as today is World Intellectual Property 
Day.
  As I discussed earlier today in this Chamber, the importance of 
strong IP protections, including a strong copyright system, is clearer 
than ever. In fact, the copyright system in our country is so critical 
that our Nation's Founders sought to recognize it in the Constitution. 
Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the 
power ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing 
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their 
respective writings and discoveries.''
  While robust intellectual property protections have always been a 
foundational principle of our Nation, today such protections are also a 
major economic driver creating and fueling the American Dream. In fact, 
core copyright industries in the United States are now responsible for 
$1.2 trillion in GDP, representing nearly 7 percent of our economy and 
employing more than 5.5 million people. In my home State of Georgia 
alone, more than 19,000 copyrights are registered annually to State 
residents.
  Yet the head of the Copyright Office, which oversees such a massive 
sector of our economy, is unilaterally selected by the Librarian of 
Congress. This is the case, despite the fact that the Copyright Office 
is statutorily designed as Congress' adviser and the massive role that 
copyright plays in our economy and our society.
  I want to be clear. I think the role of the Library is a critical 
one, and the Librarian performs many important duties. Historically, 
however, the Librarian has not been an expert in copyright and isn't 
expected to be, Mr. Speaker.
  Does it make sense, then, to make the Librarian--any Librarian--to be 
solely responsible for the selection of the person responsible for 
overseeing the Nation's copyright policy? I don't think it does. In 
fact, the current selection is more an accident of history than an 
example of carefully conceived policy.
  By way of historical background, in 1870, the Library of Congress 
believed it would make sense for copyrighted works to be placed in the 
Library as a means to grow the collection. While this made sense at 
that point in history and while the collections are still an important 
function of the Library, this provision neither requires nor justifies 
the role of the Register of Copyrights to be subordinate to the 
Librarian.
  Today, with the major role that the Copyright Office plays in our 
culture and our economy, we can no longer justify the head of the 
Copyright Office--and Congress' designated expert adviser--being hired 
under the umbrella of the Library of Congress. Currently, the Register 
is hired according to the same unilateral process as much more

[[Page 6001]]

junior positions are filled. Under today's system, the Register can 
serve for an unlimited duration without review or removal, despite the 
importance of this position.
  And finally, the Register is not Presidentially appointed, and there 
have been questions in the courts regarding the authority of the 
Copyright Office to conduct rulemaking.
  We need a copyright system for the 21st century. We need a system 
that will take us into the future by protecting and promoting 
innovation. Copyright is the foundation of innovation, and innovation 
is the force that drives our economy. A strong copyright system allows 
the millions of kids and young adults throughout our 50 States to make 
their dreams a reality, to build a career out of what they produce in 
their minds and imaginations. Today's rule provides for an underlying 
bill that will help ensure that our copyright system is equipped to 
rise to the challenges of the future and to support Americans as they 
strive to make their hopes, dreams, and ambitions into reality.
  The underlying bill promotes American innovation by recognizing the 
importance of the Register of Copyrights position. This bill would 
create a selection committee composed by bipartisan, bicameral 
congressional leadership and the Librarian of Congress to recommend 
candidates to the President for nomination. The bill would establish a 
Senate confirmation process for the position and establish a 10-year 
term for the Register of Copyrights position.
  This legislation represents the product of more than 4 years of 
bipartisan collaboration. It reflects the consensus view that the 
Copyright Office is better positioned to serve the public if the 
Register is no longer treated like a subordinate official within the 
Library, but as the seat of expertise and property protection that it 
is, regardless of who the Librarian or who the President may be.
  To reiterate, this issue has been under discussion since before 
anyone knew the former Librarian would be leaving or a new Librarian 
would be taking over.

                              {time}  1245

  When these discussions began, there was a Democrat in the White 
House, and it was clear that our next President would be, possibly, a 
Democrat as well. Yet both Republicans and Democrats have supported the 
reality that undergirds this bill, and we have supported what is good 
for American innovation and our creators and our dreamers, rather than 
worry about what specific President may make the next appointment to 
this Office.
  The legislation is the first step in the Judiciary Committee's work 
to modernize the Copyright Office, which is now needed more than ever. 
As the vice-chair of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, I will 
continue to push that effort forward, to look at ways to promote better 
infrastructure and technology at the Copyright Office, and to work to 
update our music licensing laws.
  H.R. 1695 is the beginning, rather than the end, and our commitment 
to copyright modernization and the support of these ideas underpinning 
it continue to receive broad support.
  The rule provides for a bill that is, simply put, good policy. The 
opportunity before us is not about one individual but establishing the 
right process for selecting the Copyright Register and future 
Registers. The bill would increase accountability within the Copyright 
Office and take the first steps toward making sure our Copyright Office 
works for this century.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I thank the chairman of the 
full Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, and the ranking member, John 
Conyers, for their hard work on this; and also a special commendation 
to Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who sponsored an amendment that 
actually strengthened this bill and provided a process moving forward 
that will help and, I think, bring all parties some semblance of 
structure and form as we move forward in this process, a beginning, as 
I said, the first step in a modernization of our Copyright Office.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin by wishing my colleague from Georgia a happy 
International Copyright Day, right up there with Thanksgiving and 
Christmas as great American holidays.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill. Look, first of all, 60 hours; we have less than 60 hours before 
the Federal Government of the United States will shut down, and here we 
are filling time with a bill. Of course, the concept deserves to be 
debated and fleshed out, but is it really what we should be talking 
about when we are 60 hours away from the shutdown of our Federal 
Government?
  Now, it feels like we have been here before. Now, sometimes it is 
because, unfortunately, we have been brought to the brink of economic 
disaster, just as Republicans seem to do every time government funding 
or the debt ceiling is about to expire. We know it has happened before. 
We know it will happen again.
  Maybe it is time for a short-term CR; maybe it is an omnibus, but, 
look, that is what we should be doing right now. There will be plenty 
of time, plenty of time to figure out the intricacies of copyright and 
the oversight of the Office after we make sure that the basic functions 
of government are able to continue after 60 hours.
  And even if we do keep the government open, all we are doing is 
kicking the can down the road and not allowing American businesses or 
individuals to plan for the future.
  Can you imagine if your family didn't know if you would have a job or 
what salary it would be at every few months?
  Now, look, congressional salaries, they are exempt from government 
shutdowns, of course. If they weren't, perhaps we would be discussing 
the government shutdown with 60 hours to go until other Federal workers 
are prevented from coming to work.
  Even at this moment, we don't have a full-year appropriations bill. 
We have a continuing resolution that expires midnight on Friday. Those 
are the priority issues that the American people want us to focus on. 
When we deal with what is urgent, that will allow us the time and the 
space for thoughtful consideration of Copyright Office oversight.
  We need to get past this bitter partisanship and this brinksmanship. 
Even the rule we are considering today is problematic and partisan, 
which is why I am in staunch opposition. It doesn't allow all the 
amendments to come to the floor, including one from my colleague, Ms. 
Lofgren, that I tried to amend the rule to allow, and it was turned 
down in Rules Committee by a partisan vote.
  We don't have an open rule, as Speaker Ryan promised to provide as we 
got back to what was called regular order, allowing our Democratic and 
Republican colleagues to improve and enhance bills, offer their ideas 
up for consideration. If a majority adopt them, they can be included in 
the overall bill.
  Instead, we are considering a rule that effectively stops debate on 
important amendments that were omitted and brings forward a politically 
motivated bill about the head of the Copyright Office.
  Simply put, this bill would take the authority of hiring and firing 
the Copyright Register, who is the head of the Copyright Office, from 
the Librarian of Congress, and give it to the President, with Senate 
approval. It effectively politicizes the Office of the head of the 
Copyright Office.
  Now, it sounds innocuous, but what it means is that special interests 
will be involved with picking the person to make decisions over who 
receives a copyright. Yet, again, through this bill, Congress is 
choosing the big, powerful interests over the consumers, over 
innovation, and over the little guy.
  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation said: this bill is ``designed 
to . . . allow powerful incumbent interests to use their lobbying power 
to control this increasingly politicized Office. And while the 
Librarian of Congress still oversees the Copyright Office, the

[[Page 6002]]

Librarian of Congress would not be able to remove the Register no 
matter how poorly they perform their job.''
  Under this bill, the position of Register of Copyrights will be yet 
another political position and will, frankly, stall one of the great 
projects they are embarking on, the modernization effort that is 
desperately needed at the Copyright Office. The last thing we need is 
political cronyism in the Copyright Office.
  Let's talk a little bit about the history of the position of the head 
of the Copyright Office. Most of the first century of America, U.S. 
District Court clerks processed copyright applications themselves. Now, 
that was obviously inefficient to foist on the judicial branch, and, in 
1870, Congress centralized the power of copyrights at the Library of 
Congress. Seven years later, the Copyright Office was created as a 
separate department within the Library, and the Register of Copyrights 
was established as the head of that Office.
  Why depart from history so radically now? Why give in to increasing 
executive authority in a time when many of us are concerned about the 
growing powers of the Presidency? Frankly, some of this seems to be 
about the personal dislike of the Librarian, Dr. Carla Hayden, or the 
general situation with the most recent Register who departed last 
October, Maria Pallante.
  It appears that some believe that Dr. Hayden should not have 
reassigned Ms. Pallante, so there is a micromanaging of particular 
personnel issues, but an inspector general's report stated that Ms. 
Pallante was clearly deficient in her duties, especially around those 
of modernization of the Office.
  As just one example, the inspector general discovered that the 
Copyright Office wasted 6 years and nearly $12 million attempting to 
implement an Electronic Licensing System. Based on the IG report, it 
would seem that the Librarian had a valid reason to reassign the 
Copyright Register last October, and she definitely had every right to 
do so, as the head of the Library. The last thing we want is 
politically motivated decisionmaking in a personnel process around 
performance at the Library of Congress.
  Since the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, was appointed in 
2015, she has been pulling the Library of Congress and the Copyright 
Office into the 21st century. And if we move the appointment into the 
hands of the President, we are taking away the ability for the 
Librarian to supervise the Office of Copyright and continue to do this 
work. We are going to stop progress dead in its tracks.
  With hundreds of Presidential appointees who haven't even been 
nominated, no less approved, and the glacial pace of Congress, it could 
be years before a Librarian is confirmed under this new scheme.
  Look, we all understand and agree that there are problems that we 
need to work on together with regard to the copyright process to bring 
it into the 21st century. Again, with 60 hours away from a government 
shutdown, now might be a time to focus on keeping government open and 
perhaps having a more thoughtful debate, removing the passions around 
the personnel involved after we continue to keep government open.
  This bill, unfortunately, does not solve the problems with 
copyrights. It makes the situation worse because it slows down a 
desperately needed modernization indefinitely and would hurt the public 
and consumers.
  The last thing we need is a more autonomous Copyright Office. After 
the obscene wasting of taxpayer dollars, do we really want to provide 
for more politically motivated decisionmaking within the Office of the 
Copyright? I think the answer is no; that is why I oppose the rule. I 
oppose the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I will have more time to discuss 
especially the IG report and what it may say here in just a moment. I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), 
another strong advocate in our protections of copyright and others in 
this intellectual property debate.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1695, the 
Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act.
  I am an original cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation. It was 
introduced by Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, making 
this Register of Copyrights a position nominated by the President and 
confirmed by the Senate. It was passed out of the House Judiciary 
Committee by a vote of 27-1. It is completely appropriate that we bring 
this provision to the floor.
  As a co-chair of the Congressional Songwriters Caucus, and a 
Representative of middle Tennessee, which is the Nashville area, it is 
home to many content producers and creators, in particular, to 
songwriters. Creators deserve to know that they will have a Register 
who will do a couple of things really well: is accountable to the 
people through their elected Representatives, and will provide 
independent and expert advice to Congress.
  According to a report prepared by the International Intellectual 
Property Alliance: the total copyright industries employed nearly 11.4 
million workers in 2015, accounting for 7.95 percent of all U.S. 
employment, 9.39 percent of all private employment in the U.S. The 
average annual compensation paid to employees of the total copyright 
industries in 2015, per employee, $82,117, exceeds the average annual 
wage by about 21 percent.
  Intellectual property must be protected. Copyrights must be 
protected. Congress has a role in making certain that these 
constitutional provisions are held and, also, making certain that the 
Office is responsible to Congress. I urge the House to move forward on 
this commonsense measure.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member on the 
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that should be opposed, and 
I agree with Mr. Polis that it is unfortunate it is being rushed 
because this may be one of the more significant votes we will take 
about our economy in this Congress.
  I have heard a lot of rhetoric that this isn't about the Librarian. I 
am sorry, it is about the Librarian. Dr. Carla Hayden is probably the 
most qualified Librarian of Congress who has ever served. She has done 
more in the last 6 months to advance modernization in the Library and 
the Copyright Office than her predecessor did in the prior 2 decades. 
If we prevent her from appointing a new Register, that effort will be 
stalled, and I think that would be tragic.
  It has been mentioned that somehow, by making this a political 
position, it would be more accountable. I beg to differ. Mr. Polis has 
mentioned the view of the Electronic Frontier Foundation that this 
would enhance special interests. What they have actually said, and I 
think it is very pertinent, is that the bill would allow powerful 
incumbent interests to use their lobbying power to control this 
increasingly politicized Office.
  No President is going to select an appointee who will be shot down by 
the special interests. That is quite different than the Librarian who 
removed the prior Register because of, I believe, the inspector 
general's scathing report about the failure to computerize that office, 
essentially wasting $12 million, while misrepresenting that fact to the 
Librarian and to Congress.
  The national library groups, including the national Copyright 
Alliance, the American Library Association, and the like, say this:

       It's difficult to understand how the public or Congress 
     itself would benefit from politicization of the Register of 
     Copyrights' position by making it subject to Presidential 
     appointment and Senate confirmation as this legislation 
     proposes. Such politicization of the position necessarily 
     would result in a Register more actively engaged in policy 
     development than in competent management and modernization.

  That is what we want out of a Register. We don't want a partisan for 
one side of the issue. We want somebody who can run, in an efficient 
way, the Copyright Office.

[[Page 6003]]

  Now, a word about the amendment that has been bandied about as 
somehow giving Congress a greater say. I value the friendship of my 
colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, who I have served with for so long, but 
I fear her amendment does not accomplish what she said because the 
President's power to appoint is limited only by Senate confirmation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. LOFGREN. It is limited only by Senate confirmation. It cannot be 
limited by a list prepared by Congress.

                              {time}  1300

  I would just say, finally, that if there is a conflict of interest, 
as has been suggested, the Librarian cares only about the public 
interests. It is Donald Trump who has the 30 copyrights, and I don't 
think we should ask President Trump to take this position with that 
conflict of interest, something that all of us have been concerned 
about.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, this is about policy. This is about moving 
forward in the modernization process. I believe that Ms. Hayden is 
fully qualified to be Librarian of Congress. I think the issue comes in 
the Copyright Register's Office, not the Librarian herself.
  There are some issues also. It has been interesting because I have 
been involved in this now my whole time in Congress, and this issue of 
copyright protection and intellectual property, I have to say 
Electronic Frontier Foundation are good folks, but we disagree, many of 
us in the content community and also the intellectual property, with 
the views of a more open or less inhibited copyright protection, which 
we believe is the very heartbeat of the innovative system. It is 
protecting the copyright as we go forward.
  So just simply to have somebody saying that they are looking out for 
the big guy, I am looking out for the single songwriter. I'm looking 
out for the person right now in their home pecking out their first 
novel, working on their first articles. These are the kinds of things 
that need protecting. This is the little guy we are talking about. This 
is making this modernization happen, and we are going to continue to 
move forward.
  We have differences of opinion. That is fine. But I think in looking 
at this big picture, we are talking about a Register's Office that has 
so much work in our economy as a whole, we are just simply looking 
toward the first step of modernization.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. DelBene.)
  Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to take a step back 
and consider the unintended consequences of this legislation.
  As a former member of the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity 
to hear firsthand from a very diverse range of stakeholders on their 
experiences in dealing with the Copyright Office, and one of the most 
common refrains I heard was the dire need for modernizing the Office 
and updating their IT systems to be more user-friendly. So I was very 
disturbed to learn recently that 6 years and nearly $12 million were 
wasted on yet another failed government IT project, this time at the 
Copyright Office. This waste of taxpayer dollars is unacceptable, and 
any legislation to reform the Office ought to have successful 
modernization as its primary goal. This legislation fails that test.
  H.R. 1695 sets back the clock on considerable progress that has been 
made already under the leadership of the new Librarian of Congress, Dr. 
Carla Hayden. The bill puts the power to appoint the head of the 
Copyright Office in the hands of a President who, as of February, still 
had around 2,000 appointments sitting empty. This kind of delay will 
set back the Office when it is finally on the right track.
  And to what end?
  It seems that this bill is just another solution in search of a 
problem.
  A vote for this bill is a vote to stop progress, a vote to continue 
to waste tax dollars, and a vote to add one more person to the list of 
positions that President Trump seems to have no interest in filling. I 
am very concerned that this is a misguided experiment without a clear 
purpose and that taxpayers will be the ones who foot the bill when it 
doesn't succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee of Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation, which I 
view as a great step forward.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the misdeeds alleged of the prior 
Register of Copyrights, and we have heard what a wonderful Librarian 
Carla Hayden is; and I agree, she is a wonderful Librarian. But this 
bill is not about individuals. It is not about whether the last 
Register was a good or bad Register. It is not about whether she knew 
what she was doing on modernization or not. This bill is an 
institutional bill. This bill is against politicizing. This bill is for 
strengthening and enhancing the stature of the Office of Register of 
Copyrights.
  The committee held 4 years of hearings on the Copyright Act. There 
are many contentious issues that we will be bringing to the floor over 
the next couple of years on that. This was not one of them. This issue 
had broad support.
  Everybody agrees that the Office of Copyright must be modernized. 
What this bill does is to take it and give it a little more 
independence from the Library of Congress. The Librarian of Congress is 
an interested stakeholder. There are many stakeholders in Copyright. 
Librarians are stakeholders, tech people are stakeholders, content 
creators, movie studios, authors, and editors--there are lots of 
different stakeholders. No stakeholder should be in a controlling 
position.
  The Librarian of Congress is in a controlling position, and there is 
a consensus that that ought to be reduced. I, personally, and a lot of 
other people think the Register's Office should be taken out of the 
Library entirely. But this bill is a compromise. It doesn't do that. It 
simply enhances the stature of the Copyright Office by making this a 
Presidentially appointed office for a 10-year term.
  You talk about politicizing? Right now, President Trump could, if he 
wished, fire the Librarian tomorrow. The Librarian serves at his 
pleasure, and the Register of Copyrights serves at her pleasure. So the 
President totally controls the Librarian of Congress and the Register 
at any time.
  This bill would say that the President, with the advice and consent 
of the Senate, would appoint the Register who would have a 10-year 
term. That gives her or him more independence, obviously, and it 
enables them to undertake the proper modernization.
  One of the problems we saw was that the modernization requirements of 
the Library of Congress are very different from the modernization 
requirements of the Copyright Office, and one seemed to take precedence 
over the other, which is not surprising when one is subject to the 
other and part of it.
  So this bill would increase the stature of the Copyright Office. It 
would make it less political by giving the incumbent a 10-year tenure 
during good behavior. There are powerful interests who have an 
interest, and they would be one step further removed because of the 10-
year tenure.
  This is a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Almost every 
interest group that deals with the Copyright Office is in favor of 
this, from the authors to the directors, to the songwriters, to the 
motion picture people, you name it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, but I am opposed to the 
rule.

[[Page 6004]]


  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, thank goodness, hopefully, we 
will get this rule passed and we will get to this bill so the gentleman 
can be in support of it, that is as we move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today President Trump plans to unveil a tax cut proposal 
that would vastly reduce the business tax rate for international 
corporations and even for his own real estate empire. We have no way of 
knowing how many millions he personally might save through this so-
called Trump loophole--no idea--unless he releases his tax returns. 
Democrats have been calling on the President to release his tax returns 
for this reason and so many others. We cannot allow the White House to 
be used as a tool to enrich the President and his family.
  Up until now, every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax 
return information. These returns have provided a basic level of 
transparency to help to ensure the public's interest is placed first. 
The American people deserve the same level of disclosure from this 
administration. If they continue to refuse to provide it, then we, as 
the people's elected Representatives, should hold the executive branch 
accountable.
  If not us, who?
  Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, which 
would require Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to 
simply release their tax returns.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our excellent proposal, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his 
leadership and for yielding me time.
  Here I am again. I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that 
my bipartisan--this is both Republicans and Democrats--this bipartisan 
legislation, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in 
order for debate and a vote.
  The Presidential Tax Transparency Act is very simple. It would 
require this President, all future Presidents, and Presidential 
nominees from both major parties to publicly disclose their tax 
returns. Until recently, most Americans thought this disclosure was 
required by law, but it actually has been a tradition. It has been a 
voluntary disclosure by every President of both parties since 
Watergate.
  This long disclosure tradition exists because, A, the American people 
demand a baseline level of transparency from the highest officeholder 
in the land, and each one of the Presidents wanted the American people 
to know that their first and top priority was the American people's 
interest and not their own financial interests. This last Saturday, 
April 15, thousands of Americans in 125 cities across the country 
participated in tax marches calling for the President to release his 
tax returns.
  Now, why did they do this on holy Saturday?
  Because they care and they are deeply concerned about the President's 
conflicts of interests and his foreign business entanglements.
  The President's refusal to release his tax returns is just one 
example of his administration's historic lack of transparency as we 
near the 100-day mark of the administration. As questions about his 
associates' ties to Russia continue to swirl, yesterday, the White 
House refused to provide information about General Flynn's Russia 
contacts to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Just 
before the Easter holiday, the White House also announced that it will 
break with precedent and will not make its visitor logs public. This is 
added to the fact that the President's meetings and golf outings at his 
properties in Florida, New Jersey, and elsewhere--where he has so far 
spent one-third of his Presidency, according to The Washington Post--
are also off the books.
  Who is the President meeting with? Who does he listen to? Do his 
personal financial interests come first, or do the interests of the 
country come first?
  The President's business empire makes him more susceptible to 
conflicts of interest than any President in our history, yet he has 
done less to address these conflicts than any President in modern 
history. Since 1978, every President has placed their assets in a real 
blind trust. Instead of following this tradition, the President has 
turned his business over to his sons in an arrangement that the 
nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics called ``meaningless from a 
conflict of interest perspective.'' It was later revealed that the 
President can draw profits from this trust at any time, and his son 
acknowledged that he will provide his father with periodic reports 
about the state of his family's businesses.
  This is not right. This simply does not pass muster for anyone in the 
country. This is not Republican or Democratic. This is not partisan. 
The President should release his tax returns.
  Now, as the gentleman said previously, this is, again, critically 
important because it is reported that the President is going to come 
out with a tax plan today and reportedly cut the tax rate on pass-
through entities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and all of these 
conflicts of interest, it is why the President needs to reveal his tax 
returns, it is why we have bipartisan legislation.
  We should defeat the previous question and sign on to the discharge 
petition so that this bipartisan legislation can come before the full 
House to ensure that the President provides transparency to the 
American people now and in the future.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What I really think this bill is about is President Trump wanting to 
put a Big Business friend in charge of an office that can do personal 
favors for him and his family. We know that the President and his 
family have, or are seeking, dozens of copyrights. Here is a great 
one--here is a copyright on his book, ``Trump: The Best Golf Advice I 
Ever Received.'' Now, don't get me wrong, he probably deserved a 
copyright. I am sure a ghostwriter wrote it for him and he had a strong 
contract with that ghostwriter. Since it seems that all the President 
spends his weekends and our taxpayer dollars doing is golf, the last 
thing we want is want him to put one of his golfing buddies in charge 
of the Copyright Office.
  Who is to say the next copyright application from Donald Trump won't 
be disputed?
  Placing his friends, business associates, and, yes, golfing partners 
in high places could help tip the scales in his favor, providing 
profits for him and his family at the expense of the American people.
  I would like to take a moment to speak to a few of the defenses I 
have heard about the need for this bill. There is the one stating the 
President would pick the Register from a list of experts provided by a 
group, including the Librarian.
  But guess what?
  That list is nonbinding, so the President can easily ignore the 
recommendations and do whatever he wants, which is what this President 
usually does anyway.

                              {time}  1315

  I have also heard the argument that the Register will be more 
accountable and somehow transparent as a Presidential appointee. 
Hogwash. That is

[[Page 6005]]

the opposite of the truth. There is as much transparency for a non-
Presidential appointee once in their position; and it is much less 
likely that a President is going to demand the resignation of the 
Register than the Librarian is going to reassign them, as the Librarian 
did last year when the Register was failing, as confirmed by the 
inspector general report.
  Finally, there seems to be the argument that there were a large 
number of hearings in the committee on this issue and that somehow this 
is the work product of those hearings. Well, if you look at the record, 
there was not one hearing on this bill. There were hearings about 
general copyright reform. There was no hearing on how this bill might 
have a devastating impact on the need to modernize the Copyright 
Office, creating huge delays for important efforts. There was no 
hearing on whether this bill could profit the President and his family 
at the expense of the American people.
  This is a problematic bill under a problematic rule that doesn't 
allow good ideas to come forward and be debated. We aren't even able to 
debate helpful amendments.
  I know of at least one important amendment that isn't being allowed 
to be debated on the floor, which is Representative Lofgren's amendment 
that would allow the current Librarian to fill the existing vacancy at 
the Copyright Office, and when that Register leaves, the new process 
would then apply. It seems like a commonsense transition process. Why 
can't we get a simple vote on that amendment?
  I say again, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Frankly, 
this bill makes the problem worse by giving the President the chance to 
put his business associate and golf buddies in charge of his own 
copyrights.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure the President's personality is perfectly 
charming. I certainly wouldn't disparage his personality. What I am 
talking about is him putting a golf buddy or a business associate in 
charge of an office that he receives a direct profit from. That is 
called conflict of interest. That is what we are debating here today. 
It is not about the President's personality. Obviously, he is perfectly 
charming in person. I would be happy to have dinner with him. I am 
still waiting for the invitation.
  The Copyright Office has an important function. In order to fulfill 
that function of registering copyrights, it needs to be a neutral 
arbiter. By making the head of the Copyright Office a political 
advocate, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, it 
will increasingly politicize copyrights, the basic protection Americans 
rely on regarding the tradeoff between payoffs for innovation and the 
right of consumers for dissemination. There is no chance a political 
appointee will be neutral, by nature of them being a political 
appointee.
  A political appointee will likely be the puppet of big corporations 
and the administration in their decisions around registration of 
copyrights. That doesn't help the budding author, it doesn't help the 
budding musician in a dispute, and it certainly doesn't help anyone 
trying to navigate an outdated and archaic system that needs to be 
modernized. This bill will indefinitely delay the modernization 
process.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and 
``no'' on the bill. The last thing we need is President Trump's golf 
buddies to be in charge of his own copyrights to further profit the 
President and the First Family, who have pleasant personalities.
  Do we really want to give more power to the administration so they 
can do favors for themselves and their own business interests? I hope 
not. Let's vote ``no.''
  We should be considering a funding bill to keep the government open 
instead of waiting until the absolute last second, hurting businesses 
and Americans with the huge amount of uncertainty created.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, 
``no'' on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Again, regardless of the last discussion, there are things about this 
bill that I have talked about when we first started, and doing this 
actually brings us into a position of modernizing the Copyright Office, 
which has been discussed a long time.
  I do want to address, just briefly, that there has been some 
discussion about an IG report. There has been discussion about, 
especially, the former Register of Copyrights.
  As I made clear in the conference, this has nothing to do with that 
being brought up. Implying things that were out of this IG report was 
basically attempting a character assassination of the former Register 
of Copyrights.
  I think in doing so, it has to be understood that, even in that IG 
report that is discussed, one of the Library's own responses back to 
the concerns of the IG report was that, in 2015, the inspector general 
found that the Copyright Office was compliant with all library 
methodology. With respect to its primary software applications, the 
Electronic Copyright Office and Copyright Imaging System, which support 
registration and recordation functions and are managed by the CTO, were 
all in compliance. I think that is really interesting as we look at 
this.
  But also what this IG report actually did say was that there were a 
lot of other problems. In fact, the GAO report in 2015 said the Library 
does not have the leadership to address IT management. That is why the 
Copyright Office was having to look at this because, also, in August 
2015, of the Library's poor response and modernization, which are 
things that we are looking toward and how much this affects our 
economy. Because of the Library's problems, the electronic licensing 
system went down; and for 10 days, no one could register a copyright.
  In fairness, you may not like this bill, you may not like the current 
structure, and that is fine; but when we discuss the Library, there are 
a lot of issues that I am sure will be addressed in the relevant 
committees in their oversight on this IG report. That is what they are 
designed to do.
  What we are designed to do here is also not take and pick and choose 
and cherry-pick what parts of the report we want to talk about because 
we are trying to justify the current Librarian's decision last fall. 
When we understand this, we will begin to move forward on the Copyright 
Modernization Act.
  Let's get back to the real functionality of what this is, not who we 
appoint or how they are appointed, but the fact that this matters to 
millions of people and also accounts for trillions of dollars in our 
industries across the world.
  The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is an 
important and bipartisan step. I repeat again, it came out with a vote 
of 27-1 in the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, I serve on that 
committee. That is not a usual vote on legislation that is making a 
positive, large, lasting impact that we are seeing on this. It is the 
first step rather than the last step in modernization.
  As we look forward to this, I will simply say this is a good bill. It 
has been perfected by both Republicans and Democrats. As I have said 
before, Sheila Jackson Lee, the Congresswoman from Texas, was very 
helpful putting this package together, along with the chairman and 
ranking member on both sides of the aisle, as we come forward with 
this.
  It is sort of a shame that, when we come to this bill, we diverge 
into rabbit trails away from the real issue. The real issue is let's 
help those folks who depend on the Copyright Office. Let's make 
modernize it. Let's make it the tool it is supposed to be, and that is 
the adviser of the expert in these issues for Congress. When we do so, 
at that point in time our economy continues to

[[Page 6006]]

flourish, we get aside from the theatrics, and we get back to the real 
importance of the bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 275 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require 
     the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and 
     certain candidates for the office of the President, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and 
     Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 305.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 191, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               YEAS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--191

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa

[[Page 6007]]


     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Cleaver
     Marino
     Newhouse
     Slaughter
     Tonko

                              {time}  1345

  Mses. JACKSON LEE, BASS, Mrs. BEATTY, Messrs. GOTTHEIMER, and 
COURTNEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 225.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 186, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 225]

                               AYES--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cole
     Duncan (TN)
     Marchant
     Marino
     Newhouse
     Slaughter
     Tonko

                              {time}  1353

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




    REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS SELECTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1695.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Woodall). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 275 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1695.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1356


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1695) to

[[Page 6008]]

amend title 17, United States Code, to provide additional 
responsibilities for the Register of Copyrights, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Intellectual property is a critical and growing part of our Nation's 
economy, and the Register of Copyrights has a crucial role in the 
numerous copyright policy issues that impact it.
  Four years ago, the Judiciary Committee began considering how to 
modernize our Nation's copyright laws, including how the Copyright 
Office is structured. Making the Register position subject to the 
nomination and consent process with potential candidates identified by 
a congressional selection panel was among the many issues considered by 
the House Judiciary Committee.
  Because the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, who has an 
equally important voice on patent and trademark issues, is already 
subject to the nomination and consent process, it provided a precedent 
for this approach.
  However, unlike the Patent and Trademark Office, the Copyright Office 
is part of the legislative branch. Thus, it is appropriate to also 
follow the precedent set for other legislative branch agencies, which 
gives Congress a greater say in selecting candidates for the heads of 
legislative branch entities to ensure those agencies are more 
accountable to Congress.
  Because the Register position is now vacant, filled on an acting 
capacity by a well-regarded Acting Register, Ranking Member Conyers and 
I introduced this bipartisan legislation to update the Register 
selection process. To mirror a recent change to the Librarian of 
Congress position that is now subject to a 10-year term limit, the 
legislation also makes the Register of Copyrights position subject to a 
10-year term limit.
  The selection panel would be bipartisan and would consist of leaders 
of the majorities and minorities of the House and Senate, and would 
also include the Librarian of Congress.
  In the past, the authority of the Register of Copyrights to issue 
rulemakings has not been challenged in the courts because the Register 
is not subject to the nomination and consent process.

                              {time}  1400

  This legislation would remedy that question, once and for all. H.R. 
1695 was reported by the House Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote 
of 27-1. In addition to strong support from traditional copyright 
groups, such as the Copyright Alliance, and the publishing, movie, 
music, and software industries, the bill has been supported by a wide 
range of diverse groups, such as the American Conservative Union; the 
AFL-CIO; Heritage Foundation scholars; the Directors Guild of America; 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; MANA, A National Latina Organization; 
Americans for Tax Reform; and the Council for Citizens Against 
Government Waste.
  With such strong support from a wide range of over 70 groups and a 
vacancy at the Register of Copyrights that needs to be quickly filled 
under the new process created by this legislation, I urge my colleagues 
to support H.R. 1695.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                            Committee on House Administration,

                                   Washington, DC, April 19, 2017.
     Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Goodlatte: I write to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on House 
     Administration in H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights 
     Selection and Accountability Act of 2017. The bill, as 
     reported from the Committee on the Judiciary on March 29, 
     2017, contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction 
     of the Committee on House Administration.
       I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this 
     legislation before the House of Representatives in an 
     expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive Committee 
     consideration of provisions that fall within the Committee's 
     jurisdiction. However, agreeing to waive jurisdiction over 
     these provisions should not be construed as waiving, 
     reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     House Administration.
       Additionally, the Committee on House Administration 
     expressly reserves its authority to seek conferees on any 
     provision within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference that may be convened on this, or any similar 
     legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request 
     by the Committee for conferees on H.R. 1695 for provisions 
     within the Committee's jurisdiction.
       I ask a copy of this letter and your response be placed in 
     the Congressional Record during any floor consideration of 
     H.R. 1695.
       I look forward to working with you on matters of mutual 
     concern.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Gregg Harper,
                                                         Chairman.
                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                   Washington, DC, April 20, 2017.
     Hon. Gregg Harper,
     Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Harper: Thank you for consulting with the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and agreeing to be discharged from 
     further consideration of H.R. 1695, the ``Register of 
     Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act,'' so that the 
     bill may proceed expeditiously to the House floor.
       I agree that your foregoing further action on this measure 
     does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of 
     your committee or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives 
     on this bill or similar legislation in the future. I would 
     support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate 
     number of conferees from your committee to any House-Senate 
     conference on this legislation.
       I will seek to place our letters on H.R. 1695 into the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. 
     I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and 
     look forward to continuing to work together as this measure 
     moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bob Goodlatte,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1695, the Register of 
Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act. As lead Democratic 
cosponsor of this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, I am pleased that 
this bill passed out of our Judiciary Committee--thanks to Chairman 
Goodlatte and many others--by a vote of 27-1.
  This legislation represents sound public policy that will strengthen 
the copyright system. To begin with, it has evolved directly from the 
bipartisan copyright review process that Chairman Goodlatte initiated 
way back in 2013. Over the course of that highly deliberative process, 
the Judiciary Committee held no less than 20 hearings and heard from 
over 100 witnesses on how to update the copyright laws for the 21st 
century.
  H.R. 1695 is the product of more than 4 years of outreach efforts 
with a wide range of interested parties who very much want to see, like 
all of us, a Copyright Office that is responsible to all stakeholders 
in the copyright ecosystem.
  This bill is also the product of bicameral collaboration with our 
Senate colleagues, including the Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, 
the Ranking Member Feinstein, and Senator Leahy. As a result of this 
inclusive process, the strong bipartisan consensus emerged from the 
Copyright Office that needs to be more accountable to Congress, and 
that it should have greater independence.
  That Office has a long and distinguished history of serving as an 
adviser to Congress on copyright measures, and it is only reasonable 
that Congress play a significant role in deciding who leads that 
important agency.
  H.R. 1695 also elevates the stature of the Register and makes the 
position directly accountable to Congress, which will help ensure a 
strong and vibrant copyright system that fuels our economy, creates 
jobs, and promotes a diverse range of views.

[[Page 6009]]

  Today, core copyright businesses annually contribute more than $1.2 
trillion to our Nation's economy and generate foreign sales of almost 
$180 billion. These businesses are also tremendous job creators, 
creating more than 5 million workers.
  That is why the bill is strongly supported by several unions, 
including the AFL-CIO, the Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation 
of Television and Radio Artists, as well as the Directors Guild of 
America.
  H.R. 1695 is also supported by a broad range of other stakeholders, 
including: the American Intellectual Property Law Association; the 
Intellectual Property Owners Association; and various coalitions of 
creators, such as the Content Creators Coalition (c3), CreativeFuture, 
and the Copyright Alliance.
  Individual creators like Jeff Friday, the founder and CEO of Film 
Life and the producer of the American Black Film Festival also are in 
strong support of the bill.
  Finally, H.R. 1695 will enable Congress to ensure that the Copyright 
Office is led by a well-qualified individual by requiring the Register 
to be confirmed by the Senate. This individual must be responsive to 
the Congress and the public, as well as all the stakeholders in the 
copyright community.
  In fact, an amendment offered by our distinguished colleague from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), that was accepted during the Judiciary 
Committee markup of the bill, will further strengthen the selection 
process by establishing an even larger role for Congress in choosing 
candidates for the position.
  Accordingly, I urge total support for H.R. 1695, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the committee who has done an 
amazing job.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1695. This legislation 
would strengthen the Copyright Office and make it more accountable to 
Congress by turning the Register of Copyrights into a Senate-confirmed 
position.
  Since 2013, under the bipartisan leadership of Chairman Goodlatte and 
Ranking Member Conyers, the Judiciary Committee has undertaken a 
comprehensive review of the copyright laws and the Copyright Office. 
Over the course of 20 hearings with 100 witnesses, as well as listening 
sessions across the country, and individual meetings with a broad range 
of stakeholders, we have heard one consistent message: that the 
Copyright Office must be modernized to meet the needs of the public in 
the copyright community.
  This bill is an important first step in that process, and it is 
appropriate that we consider it today on World Intellectual Property 
Day when we recognize the tremendous contribution that intellectual 
property laws, including copyright, make to our economy and to our 
creativity. But maintaining this vibrant copyright ecosystem depends on 
having an effective Copyright Office to oversee it. Throughout the 
copyright review process, it became evident that the current structure 
of the Office has hindered its ability to serve the public and the 
copyright community effectively.
  For historical reasons, the Copyright Office is located in the 
Library of Congress, and the Register of Copyrights answers solely to 
the Librarian of Congress. As an institutional matter, this creates a 
conflict. Libraries are a key stakeholder in the copyright community, 
but they are one among many stakeholders, each with different 
priorities and interests. To place the Copyright Office in the hands of 
one interested party does a disservice to the copyright system it is 
charged with administering.
  H.R. 1695 would remedy this problem by making the Register of 
Copyrights a Presidential appointment subject to Senate confirmation. 
It would establish an open and transparent process for publicly vetting 
a nominee for Register and would allow the broad range of copyright 
stakeholders to provide input through their elected Representatives.
  It would also strengthen the ability of Congress to provide 
meaningful oversight of the Copyright Office, and, by establishing a 
10-year term for the Register, it would insulate the Office from any 
improper political influence.
  It is particularly important that Congress have the final say in who 
serves as Register because, by statute, the Copyright Office serves as 
an expert adviser to Congress on copyright matters. The Office has 
played an invaluable role throughout the Judiciary Committee's 
copyright review process, and this bill would ensure that we continue 
to rely on independent advice from the Register as we make further 
reforms to the copyright laws.
  Under current law, the selection of the Register is left entirely to 
the Librarian. And since the Librarian serves at the pleasure of the 
President, it is really the President who can dictate the choice of 
Register if the Librarian wishes to keep her job. And the Register can 
be dismissed at any time by the Librarian, possibly at the direction of 
the President.
  This bill serves as an important check on the President's power by 
removing his unfettered ability to name a Register, by requiring Senate 
confirmation of the position instead, and by giving the Register a 
fixed 10-year term.
  The role of Congress is further solidified by an important amendment 
that was added during the committee's markup by the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). Under her amendment, which is now in the bill, 
a panel of congressional leaders, along with the Librarian of Congress, 
would develop a list of candidates from which the President would 
choose a nominee. This strengthens congressional input and preserves an 
important role in the process for the Librarian as well.
  The Jackson Lee amendment strikes a good balance between respecting 
the roles of Congress, the President, and the Librarian in selecting 
the Register, and I appreciate the contribution she made to the bill.
  The Copyright Office serves a vital function, but its current 
structure does not reflect the importance of the Office. H.R. 1695 
elevates the status and the stature of the Register, and treats the 
position like other Federal officials with similarly significant 
responsibilities--like the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark 
Office. This would make the Copyright Office more responsive and 
accountable to Congress, and it is the first step to its providing the 
Office with the flexibility and independence it needs to serve all 
members of the copyright community effectively.
  This legislation is independent of any evaluation of the fitness of 
the current Librarian--who is excellent in my opinion--of the fitness 
of the prior Register. This legislation has been developed over a 
period of years, and the importance is institutional, not reflecting 
the personalities of the current occupants.
  This legislation is supported by a broad range of stakeholders, 
including the AFL-CIO and several other major unions, and it passed the 
Judiciary Committee by a nearly unanimous vote of 27-1.
  It deserves similar support by the full House, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), ranking member of the House Administration 
Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for whom I have the utmost respect for. But unfortunately, I rise in 
opposition to this bill.
  Dr. Carla Hayden, appointed by President Obama, has been on the job 
less than a year and deserves the opportunity to complete the IT 
modernization of the Copyright Office before this authority is taken 
away from her. As ranking member of the Committee on House 
Administration, I know that Dr. Hayden has made excellent process in 
reforming the Copyright

[[Page 6010]]

Office, knocking 2 years off the estimated time to complete its 
modernization. This bill is a solution in search of a problem.
  This measure not only impedes the progress Dr. Hayden is currently 
making but will also undue the strides that have already been made. 
Simply put, this bill does nothing to improve the operations of the 
Copyright Office.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stay with Dr. Hayden and vote 
``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, despite all the rhetoric, this bill does 
really just one thing: it takes the appointment of the Register away 
from Dr. Carla Hayden, the most qualified Librarian we have ever had at 
the Library of Congress, and gives it to President Trump.
  Now, the policy excuses for this are simply unpersuasive. Proponents 
say that this would give greater transparency to the Congress and the 
operation of the Copyright Office. I think this is a ridiculous 
statement.
  Once a Presidential appointment is confirmed, there is no greater 
attention to the desires of Congress or transparency than for any other 
non-Presidential appointment. The conflicts that the Republican 
Congress had with President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency and 
IRS appointees are testimony to that truth.
  There are vague claims of elevating the Register and modernizing the 
Office, but, in fact, the Library is finally making progress on 
modernizing the Office. This bill would actually disrupt that progress.
  When you talk about conflicts, the Library doesn't have a conflict 
with this, but who does have a conflict is President Trump. He holds 30 
copyrights. So I don't think the idea of President Trump being a 
superior selector of the Register because of his elevation or his 
expertise as a writer really holds any weight.
  I would like to mention the amendment that our colleague Sheila 
Jackson Lee had offered. I am extremely fond of my friend Sheila 
Jackson Lee, but the amendment does nothing because you cannot limit 
Presidential appointment power through statute. The President is 
limited only by the advice and consent of the Senate.
  Finally, I would like to say that the potential for empowering 
special interests in this bill is very high. We ought to say ``no'' to 
this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate all the great work that my 
colleague, Congressman Conyers, has done not only on this issue, for 
the many years you have served distinguishably in this Congress, but 
thank you so much for yielding some time.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights 
Selection and Accountability Act of 2017.
  I represent the San Fernando Valley, which is in the Los Angeles 
area. For my constituents, for the families in my district, copyright 
protections are not an abstract philosophical issue, ladies and 
gentlemen. The families in my district depend on strong copyright 
protections in order to earn a living, to feed their family. They work 
in film and television studios and in music publishing. They are 
artists, set designers, producers, union drivers; they work on lots, 
and they work in every aspect supporting this incredible industry.
  There are 127,000 film and television production jobs in Los Angeles 
County. According to a recent report, the core copyright industries--
film, television, music, video games, and publishing--make possible 5.5 
million jobs and bring in $1.2 trillion of gross domestic product to 
the American economy.
  Good copyright laws and regulations mean jobs and whether or not a 
family can put food on the table and a roof over their heads. We need 
to give the Copyright Office the respect and authority it deserves as 
the overseer of 5.5 million American jobs.
  I have heard from my constituents for years about the need to empower 
the Copyright Office to keep up with the industry and the technology 
changes. This is not a new debate, ladies and gentlemen.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and to 
continue to stand up for American copyright jobs.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member, and I 
appreciate his work. I appreciate the chairman's work on this bill.
  I believe that this proposal is ill-timed, and that is why I rise in 
opposition to it.
  Today, World Intellectual Property Day, the protection of our 
Nation's intellectual property and, specifically, our copyrights is too 
important to take lightly.
  The system for the appointment of the Register of Copyrights has long 
been in place, and selection of the head of the Office of Copyrights 
has been within the purview of the Librarian of Congress, this Nation's 
top librarian.
  The system is not broken, but the entire system, including the 
Library of Congress, is in need of congressional attention and upgrade. 
What is needed is modernization, which requires more funding. Our first 
order of business should be to fund adequately the operations of the 
Library of Congress as well as the Office of Copyrights. But in these 
days where we are trying to keep the government from closing, you see 
what we are dealing with in that regard. It is fitting that this 
decision remain with the Librarian, as she has an interest in 
protecting copyrighted materials as head librarian.
  The nomination and consent process has been politicized, with the 
recent theft from President Obama of a United States Supreme Court 
appointment serving as Exhibit A.
  The Library has been well underfunded for many years, and separating 
the Register's Office would not help with the comprehensive 
modernization of the Library or the Copyright Office. Instead, it would 
subject the newly independent Office to the appropriations process, 
which, as I stated, is already failing.
  The Library of Congress is the premiere stakeholder in the smooth and 
efficient operations of the Office of Copyrights. The Librarian of 
Congress is in the best position to monitor the operations of the 
Copyright Office much more than the Office of the President.
  Modernization of the Library has been discussed for the past 10 
years. Let's do it comprehensively. Let's not start off with this 
proposal which, quite frankly, doesn't pass the smell test at this 
time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, the ranking member from 
Michigan, for the time, and I appreciate the opportunity to join the 
majority of my committee colleagues as a cosponsor of this bill. It 
reflects the general consensus that Congress needs to step in to 
increase the autonomy of the Copyright Office, while still respecting 
its historic connection to the Library.
  This bill is an important first step in reforming the Copyright 
Office, but it can't be the only step. Through the hearings this 
committee has held over the past few years, we have learned how truly 
behind the curve the Copyright Office is.
  I have worked with colleagues to find a bipartisan and consensus-
driven set of reforms for the Copyright Office that would go beyond 
just this step in the

[[Page 6011]]

process of selecting a Register, as have the chairman and Ranking 
Member Conyers and others on the committee.
  It should be obvious that, to bring the Office into the 21st century, 
we need to do more than just change the selection process for the 
Register of Copyrights. It requires a massive overhaul of the IT system 
of the Office to create both a smoother process for creators seeking to 
protect their work and a system to enable the public to search the 
broad catalog of American creativity.
  It requires increased accountability and consultation with both the 
creative and the user communities so that we ensure that the 
improvements and investments meet the needs of all those who rely on 
the Copyright Office to do its job well.
  Establishing the Register of Copyrights with authority outside of the 
Library of Congress is not a reflection on the Librarian of Congress. 
It is a recognition of the reality that the Library and the Copyright 
Office have two fundamentally different missions, and they deserve to 
be empowered to pursue those missions. It is a recognition that success 
for both of these important entities means allowing them to maintain 
their historic connection but operate on a day-to-day basis with 
greater autonomy.
  I am glad that the chairman has taken up this first step, and I look 
forward to working with him and Ranking Member Conyers and others on 
the next steps as well.
  This piece of legislation supports strong copyright laws in our 
country. Having strong copyright means the ability for creators to be 
able to do their work. It means the creation of jobs.
  The reason that this piece of legislation has such strong bipartisan 
support, the reason that it is supported by the thousands and thousands 
of people who earn their living every day as a result of the creativity 
that strong copyright laws protect, the reason they are supporting this 
legislation is because it is an important first step.
  I am glad to participate in this debate, and I look forward to 
passing this bill, H.R. 1695, in order to take that first step to 
promote stronger copyright, to provide the kind of autonomy that the 
Copyright Office needs so that it can move forward rapidly with 
modernization, and, most importantly, at this moment in our Nation's 
history, to ensure that we have the strongest possible avenue to create 
even more good jobs, well-paying jobs. That is what this legislation is 
about.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chair, this is a bill that is 
critical for us to pass. It is the result of more than 3 years of 
hearings, listening tours, and dozens of conversations with a wide 
range of stakeholders.
  Under the leadership of Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Ranking Member 
John Conyers, the Judiciary Committee members sat through hours of 
hearings and even traveled to different cities around the country to 
hear from all the stakeholders that are impacted by our copyright 
policies.
  It is clear that we need a change in the Copyright Office. We need to 
protect our Copyright Office. We can do that with a Presidential 
appointee of the Register. That is why this bill is supported by a wide 
range of stakeholders, including the AFL-CIO; the Screen Actors Guild-
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, SAG-AFTRA; the 
Directors Guild; the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage 
Employees, or IATSE; the American Federation of Musicians; the Motion 
Picture Association of America; the Recording Industry Association of 
America; the GRAMMYs; the National Association of Broadcasters; 
Software and Information Industry Association; the American 
Intellectual Property Law Association; and the Intellectual Property 
Owners Association, amongst many.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, for the sake of our future and the 
protection of copyright, to support this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), one of the most influential 
members of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan 
and all of my colleagues that have spoken on this job-creating 
legislation and recognition of how great America is with all of the 
creative talent that we have mustered, the music that you enjoy, the 
songwriters and others who created both the visual and musical arts. 
This is what this is about.
  Now, I have listened to some of my colleagues from California. I am 
not from California. I am from Houston, Texas. But we know that 
creative artists and writers and those who invent and those who write 
wonderful stories are all part of the arena of what America is great 
about. They generate genius and they create jobs. The Copyright Office 
is that protector that ensures that those jobs will be protected.
  We, over a series of years in the Judiciary Committee, have looked at 
reforming the copyright system. We have had hearings even with the 
former Copyright Register, who indicated that putting her position in a 
Senate confirmation would be the right thing to do. But it has taken 4 
years.
  So today we have come not to be out of order and not doing other 
major aspects of reform. In fact, I want to congratulate the Librarian 
of Congress who, now, is engaged in modernization. I applaud her. Her 
appointment has been significant. She is innovative and is already 
working to make sure that the Library and the creative arts and assets 
and property of those of great talent is protected.

                              {time}  1430

  Today we address an aspect of that work, and that is we want to 
continue to see the progress that our Librarian has made. We want to be 
able to make on an equal status that individual that is dealing with 
copyright just as the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 
status as a Presidential appointee does not compromise that person's 
ability to execute their duties as head of the USPTO, nor should it 
compromise or interfere with the responsibilities of cooperation, 
collaboration, jurisdictional compromise, and work between the 
Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyrights.
  To the Librarian of Congress, my view is keep working, keep doing the 
modernization work. I believe that as we move forward, regardless of 
who at this point is in the Office of President, that we can ensure 
that Congress has insight and oversight over this important position.
  Let me also suggest to my colleagues that the Library of Congress is 
an important part of the work of Congress, and I think all of us should 
be interested stakeholders in the work that it does and should be 
supporters of that.
  We encourage the Library of Congress to work with America's 
constituency by having programs and letting them know of the wonderful 
artifacts that are there, that are held, that tell the history of this 
great Nation. It is always important to be able to do research there 
and to see the storied history.
  Now, we come to this bill that does nothing to undermine that storied 
history or the Librarian of Congress. What it does, as I have 
indicated, is it helps us create jobs.
  Now, in order to recognize the importance of the Librarian of 
Congress, in this instance, Dr. Carla Hayden, I am very grateful that 
my colleagues accepted an amendment that I have that, in fact, does do 
something, and it does a very important action. It respects and 
recognizes the value of Congress' insight on putting forth nominees or 
names that will be selected from to become the Register of Copyrights, 
not to have limited input, but to actually produce the names.
  Ultimately, I hope that an amendment going forward after this bill,

[[Page 6012]]

working with the Senate, can be that there is a limit to the names 
being put forward and that those names are the names that are put 
forward to the President of the United States. I think that is an 
element that should be included.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Fortenberry). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. In the amendment, it has that the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the 
majority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of 
the Senate, minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the 
Librarian of Congress will be, in fact, the deciders of who gets 
nominated to be the Register of Copyrights.
  As we well know, the AFL-CIO has provided a letter of support, along 
with the American Federation of Musicians, the Authors Guild, the 
Directors Guild of America, the Graphic Artists Guild, the 
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, and Screen Actors 
Guild. All of these create jobs and all of these unions have 
representatives all around the Nation.
  Finally, I would say it is extremely important that the musicians and 
artists of color have indicated that they see no bias in this 
particular legislation against the present Librarian and have written a 
letter indicating that they believe that there is no bias.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has again expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. So I ask my colleagues to work together and to pass 
H.R. 1695 to continue the process of modernization of the Copyright 
Office and continue the collaborative work between the Librarian of 
Congress and the Register of Copyrights. There is no difference in the 
cooperation of decades before and, as well, there is no indication that 
that will not occur in the future. Both of them will have 10-year 
terms, and I believe that we will move forward on behalf of the 
American people.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the rule under consideration for H.R. 
1695, the ``Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 
2017,'' as amended to include the Jackson Lee Amendment.
  H.R. 1695, the ``Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability 
Act of 2017,'' if enacted, would change the selection process for the 
Register of Copyrights, who is the Director of the United States 
Copyright Office, which is housed in the Library of Congress.
  The Librarian of Congress, an appointed position subject to Senate 
confirmation since 1987, is currently tasked with modernizing the 
Library of Congress.
  This legislation is not about taking power away from any individual.
  In fact, Dr. Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of Congress, is by 
all accounts serving the various needs of the Library of Congress very 
well.
  This legislation and the Jackson Lee Amendment only further the 
Library's efforts to effectively modernize its copyright selection and 
approval process.
  Just as the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's status 
as a Presidential appointee does not compromise her ability execute her 
duties as head of the USPTO, the Copyright Register will not be 
compromised by the fact he or she is a Presidential appointee.
  Dr. Hayden is an exceptional administrator and the bill before us in 
no way reflects adversely upon her.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment, accepted during markup with bipartisan 
support by the members of the Judiciary Committee to improve the bill, 
recognizes the dual role of the Library of Congress as both a 
legislative and a national institution, militating against giving 
President carte blanche in nominating the Register of Copyrights.
  Specifically, the bill's amended provision establishes a 7-person 
panel to recommend a list of at least three (3) individuals to the 
President for appointment as the Register of Copyrights.
  The amendment provides that the panel membership shall be as follows:
  1. Speaker of the House of Representatives;
  2. President pro tempore of the Senate;
  3. Majority Leader of the House of Representatives;
  4. Majority Leader of the Senate;
  5. Minority Leader of the House of Representatives;
  6. Minority Leader of the Senate; and the
  7. Librarian of Congress.
  This bill is the product of years of bipartisan deliberation, and 
reflects the collective and considered judgment of Members of Congress 
that the Copyright Office would be strengthened as an institution were 
the Register to be selected through the advise and consent process, 
regardless of which political party occupied the Oval Office or 
controlled majorities in Congress.
  The essential role of government is to protect life, liberty and 
property.
  That is why a fundamental bulwark of the core values demonstrated by 
our constitution is property rights--a notion understood by the 
Founders at the dawn of the Republic.
  For precisely that reason, the Founding Fathers recognized the 
importance of IP in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: ``To 
promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for 
limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their 
respective Writings and Discoveries.''
  This clause, articulated by the Founders, is rooted in the notion 
that the best way to encourage creation and dissemination of new 
inventions and creative works to the benefit of both the public good 
and individual liberty is to recognize one's right to his or her 
intellectual property.
  On November 12, 1975, at the investiture of Daniel J. Boorstin as the 
12th Librarian of Congress, Congressman Lucien N. Nedzi of Michigan, 
the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library, stated:

       As its name reveals, the Library is the Library of 
     Congress--a fact in which the Congress of the United States 
     takes great pride--and, of equal importance, if not more so, 
     it is a national library that serves all of the people of the 
     United States.

  H.R. 1695, balanced by the Jackson Lee Amendment, strikes the proper 
balance and harmonizes these dual interests.
  The national interest and character of the institution is preserved 
by elevating the office of the Register of Copyrights and vesting in 
the President the authority to nominate the Register of Copyrights.
  The legislative interest is protected by constraining the President 
to select for appointment 1 of 3 persons recommended by panel that 
represents the institutional interests of Congress in the Library and 
its subdivisions--the joint congressional leadership and the Librarian 
of Congress.
  The panel only possesses the power to recommend candidates to the 
President; it cannot dictate the President's choice.
  Moreover, this arrangement complies with Article II, Section 2, 
Clause 2 of the Constitution, which provides:

       [The President] shall . . . nominate, and by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, 
     other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme 
     Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose 
     appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which 
     shall be established by law[.]

  The Founder's wisdom is manifest in today's creative economy, which 
contributes more than $1.2 trillion to GDP and supports 5.5 million 
jobs.
  Yet in a quirk of history, without this legislation, Congress has no 
role in the selection of the Register of Copyrights, even though the 
Register is Congress' statutorily designated expert advisor on 
copyright policy and the head of the Copyright Office.
  What is no accident is that Congress can fix this problem by passing 
H.R. 1695, on World IP Day, Wednesday, April 26, 2017.
  This would increase accountability to Congress as well as 
transparency by giving all Americans a voice in the selection of the 
Register through their elected representatives.
  We can think of no better way to recognize the contributions of 
copyright to the economy than by finally ascribing to the position of 
Register an importance commensurate with the sector it oversees.
  I urge my support for the rule, as well as the underlying legislation 
as amended.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers remaining, and I am 
prepared to close when Ranking Member Conyers concludes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Ladies and gentlemen, in closing, I want to point out that it is 
particularly appropriate that we are considering H.R. 1695 on World 
Intellectual Property Day, a day dedicated to acknowledging the 
critical role that intellectual property rights play in encouraging 
creativity and innovation.

[[Page 6013]]

  First established in 2001, World Intellectual Property Day encourages 
engagement among governments, private industry, and the public about 
the importance of intellectual property promotion and protection.
  H.R. 1695 goes a long way in achieving those goals. Accordingly, I 
thank my colleagues for their support, and I urge that this bill be 
passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Content Creators Coalition, dated April 25, 2017, in support of this 
legislation.

                                                   April 25, 2017.
       Congressional Black Caucus Member: On behalf of the Content 
     Creators Coalition, we write in support of H.R. 1695, the 
     Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act, 
     which would modernize and provide greater transparency to the 
     process of selecting the Register of the Copyright Office.
       This is vital legislation that will strengthen the 
     Copyright Office. We believe this selection process should be 
     granted a similar import, rigor, and transparency as the 
     processes of selecting other organizations, such as the U.S. 
     Patent and Trademark office, that oversee large industries: 
     Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. In light of 
     the specialized knowledge required to lead this office, we 
     also support the appointment of an advisory group to suggest 
     candidates for consideration.
       This legislation would place the Copyright Office on equal 
     footing as other economically and culturally vital agencies. 
     It has wide bipartisan support and was passed out of the 
     typically polarized House Judiciary Committee on a vote of 
     27-1.
       As artists of color, we find it deeply offensive that 
     opponents of this bill have attempted to recast their anti-
     creators' rights goals into a smear campaign against its 
     sponsors and supporters, insinuating that the legislation is 
     about the race and gender of the current Librarian of 
     Congress. The Register of Copyrights Selection and 
     Accountability Act is co-authored by the Dean of the House 
     and the Congressional Black Caucus, Judiciary Ranking Member 
     John Conyers, and supported by Congressman John Lewis. Their 
     lifelong and unshakeable commitment to civil rights is a 
     historical fact and should be honored and respected, not 
     opportunistically and baselessly questioned just to score a 
     few empty political points.
       We would be the first to speak out against prejudice or 
     bias anywhere--in business, culture, the arts, or politics. 
     But here, we know these charges are false. The bill has 
     nothing to do with the current Librarian at all--in fact, 
     these reform proposals pre-date her appointment.
       Nor does this bill have anything to do with the former 
     Register of Copyrights. We are grateful for her tireless 
     efforts and advocacy on behalf of working musicians and find 
     it appalling that some have engaged in efforts to drag her 
     record through the mud to defeat these reforms.
       And certainly the bill has nothing to do with the current 
     President--once again, these proposals to modernize the 
     Copyright Office long pre-date his election. It is the height 
     of cynicism for bill opponents to attempt to ride on the 
     powerful coattails of the ``RESIST'' movement by falsely 
     wrapping this bipartisan pro-artist, pro-creator legislation 
     in the controversies surrounding the President, especially in 
     light of his proposal for massive cuts to funding for the 
     arts. In our view, misleading the President's critics by 
     leveraging fear into opposition for a non-controversial 
     proposal like this ultimately undermines and disrespects our 
     movement.
       The need for this legislation is plain. The current system 
     in which the Librarian of Congress selects the Register is 
     the result of a unique moment in history and outdated 
     concerns: in 1870, the Librarian of Congress asked Congress 
     to give him the authority to appoint the Register in order to 
     deal with a massive influx of new works and the need to 
     quickly grow the Library's collection.
       Nearly 150 years later, the functions of the Copyright 
     Office have changed. It is no mere registry of creative 
     works, but has become the most trusted advisor on Copyright 
     law and its interpretation for the United States Congress. 
     The process of selecting a leader to this office should 
     reflect the importance of copyright to the U.S. economy.
       Congress is reviewing and revising copyright laws to ensure 
     they continue to protect all music creators in a time of 
     rapid transition online. It deserves the best advice it can 
     get, and reform of the Register selection process is long 
     overdue.
       Thank you for consideration of our views,
     Melvin Gibbs.
     Nona Hendryx.
     Ernie Isley.
     Ramsey Jones.
     Darrell McNeill.
     V Jeffery Smith.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I thank Ranking Member Conyers and many other Members across the 
aisle, as well as the subcommittee chair and the subcommittee vice 
chair of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 
Property, and the Internet--Mr. Issa and Mr. Collins--for their hard 
work in support of this legislation, which is urgently needed. It is 
very straightforward. It has very broad bipartisan support here in the 
House.
  It is also strongly supported in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate. 
A wide array of outside organizations--virtually every copyright 
organization in the country--as well as a number of other organizations 
concerned about the importance of intellectual property protection and 
particularly copyright law want to see the status of the Register of 
Copyrights elevated by Presidential appointment with input from six 
leaders in the House and the Senate and the Librarian of Congress to 
select the next Register of Copyrights and have a 10-year term, which 
is compatible with terms of other important legislative branch 
positions.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, today I voted against H.R. 1695, the 
Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act. As the founder 
and co-chair of the Congressional Library of Congress Caucus, I care 
deeply about the services and the mission of the Library, including the 
U.S. Copyright Office. It's past time to bring the Library and the 
Copyright Office into the 21st Century, and I strongly support efforts 
to modernize and reform existing practices. H.R. 1695, however, might 
unnecessarily politicize the Copyright Office and the position of the 
Register and could make its work less transparent and less neutral to 
all parties. We should allow Dr. Carla Hayden to continue to guide the 
modernization process by selecting a Register, a decision enjoyed by 
all of her predecessors to hold the office of Librarian. While it is 
unclear that H.R. 1695 would do more good than harm, I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on both sides of aisle on future efforts to 
reform and modernize the Library of Congress the copyright system.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in 
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-13. 
That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as 
read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1695

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Register of Copyrights 
     Selection and Accountability Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 701 of title 17, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``(a) All administrative'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Register and Director.--
       ``(1) In general.--All administrative'';
       (B) by striking ``director'' and inserting ``Director'';
       (C) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``The Register of Copyrights shall be a citizen of the United 
     States with a professional background and experience in 
     copyright law and shall be appointed by the President from 
     the individuals recommended under paragraph (6), by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate.''; and
       (D) in the last sentence, by striking ``shall be 
     appointed'' and all that follows through ``and shall act'' 
     and inserting ``shall act'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by redesignating paragraphs (1) 
     through (5) as subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively, 
     and adjusting the margins accordingly;
       (3) by redesignating subsection (b) as paragraph (2), and 
     adjusting the margins accordingly;
       (4) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``Duties.--'' before ``In addition'';
       (5) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Oath.--The Register of Copyrights shall, before 
     taking office, take an oath to discharge

[[Page 6014]]

     faithfully the duties of the Copyright Office described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Removal.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Register of Copyrights may be 
     removed from office by the President.
       ``(B) Notification.--The President shall provide 
     notification to both Houses of Congress of a removal under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(5) Term of office.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Register of Copyrights--
       ``(i) shall be appointed for a term of 10 years; and
       ``(ii) may serve until a successor is appointed, confirmed, 
     and taken the oath of office.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Register of Copyrights may not 
     continue to serve after the date on which Congress adjourns 
     sine die after the date on which the 10-year period described 
     in subparagraph (A)(i) ends.
       ``(C) Reappointment.--An individual appointed to the 
     position of Register of Copyrights, by and with the advice 
     and consent of the Senate, may be reappointed to that 
     position in accordance with the requirements of this section.
       ``(6) Panel for register of copyrights recommendations.--
     There is established a panel to recommend a list of at least 
     3 individuals to the President for appointment as the 
     Register of Copyrights. The panel shall be composed of the 
     following:
       ``(A) The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       ``(B) The President pro tempore of the Senate.
       ``(C) The majority and minority leaders of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.
       ``(D) The Librarian of Congress.'';
       (6) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as 
     subsections (b) through (e), respectively;
       (7) in subsection (b), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``Seal.--'' before ``The Register'';
       (8) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``Annual Report.--'' before ``The Register'';
       (9) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``Applicability of Title 5.--'' before ``Except as 
     provided''; and
       (10) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by inserting 
     ``Compensation.--'' before ``The Register''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to any vacancy for the Register of 
     Copyrights after January 1, 2017. If a Register of Copyrights 
     is appointed during the period beginning on January 1, 2017 
     and ending on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, that Register shall meet the requirements of the 
     amendments made by this Act or shall be replaced in 
     accordance with such amendments.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 115-
95. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 115-95.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, line 18, insert after ``law'' the following: ``, 
     shall be capable of identifying and supervising a Chief 
     Information Officer or other similar official responsible for 
     managing modern information technology systems,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will place a much-needed 
priority on advancing the technological capabilities of the U.S. 
Copyright Office.
  I support the underlying bill to make the selection of the Register 
of Copyrights more open and more transparent. I also support the 
additional congressional oversight that will be necessary to ensure 
that the Register is accountable to the American people.
  I agree with Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and my other 
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that it is important that this 
bill move forward now. Making this improvement to the selection process 
for the next Register is an important first step before the committee 
advances broader Copyright Office modernization.
  Even as we take this initial modest step to improve the appointment 
process, we can do more to strengthen the Copyright Office for today's 
economy. The Copyright Office's mission is to administer our Nation's 
copyright laws for the public good.
  Securing Americans' rights to their intellectual property fosters 
creativity and benefits all Americans by advancing the arts and the 
sciences. In recent decades, this mission has been undermined by 
comically outdated information technology systems at the Copyright 
Office.
  My amendment makes a simple change to the underlying bill to ensure 
that technology is always a part of the equation when selecting a new 
Register of Copyrights. My amendment would require the Register of 
Copyrights to be capable of identifying and supervising a chief 
information officer.
  The CIO or a similar official would be responsible for managing 
information technology systems to advance the Copyright Office's 
capabilities and keep pace with our 21st century economy. One would 
assume that any qualified candidate for the Register of Copyrights has 
the skills and experiences necessary to guide the Office's technology 
office.
  Why leave this vital aspect of the Copyright Office to assumptions?
  Requiring the head of the Copyright Office to be ready to make this 
vital selection is not an overly burdensome obligation. For practical 
purposes, this capability is a necessity, and that is why my amendment 
would make technology an explicit part of the selection process.
  My amendment merely requires that the person who will serve as the 
Register be capable of supervising the Office's chief information 
officer. Whatever happens next as we move forward with modernization, 
IT systems of the Copyright Office must keep pace with new advancements 
in technology. If Congress expects real progress toward improving the 
Copyright Office's technology, we must ensure that the leaders we 
select are prepared for the job.
  I thank my Judiciary Committee colleague, Ms. Lofgren. She made this 
point in committee during the markup of this bill, and the language in 
this amendment takes her suggestion a step further. It is a small 
change to the underlying bill, but it sends a much-needed signal that 
the work of the Copyright Office must include a focus on improving its 
IT systems.
  This is only the beginning of Congress' work to modernize the 
Copyright Office. H.R. 1695 is a good first step, and I strongly 
support the underlying bill, but any step forward toward modernization 
must have IT improvements at the front of mind. I hope my colleagues 
also support this change. I think it is a commonsense step.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, but I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the 
amendment offered by Mr. Deutch. Mr. Deutch has been a strong supporter 
of intellectual property as well as the modernization of the Copyright 
Office during the House Judiciary Committee's copyright review.

                              {time}  1445

  The needs of a modern copyright registration system require advanced 
information technology systems, so it is critical that all future 
Registers have a strong base of information technology knowledge within 
the Office to lead such efforts. By requiring all future Registers to 
have the skills necessary to identify and hire a chief information 
officer or other similar official to lead such efforts within the 
Office, the Deutch amendment ensures a strong Copyright Office. I want 
to thank the gentleman for making this important contribution to the 
legislation.
  I neglected to mention earlier--I don't see him here now--but I also 
want to thank the ranking member of

[[Page 6015]]

the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), for the 
important contributions he has made to this legislation as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want everyone to know that I rise 
in support of this amendment. As we discovered through the Judiciary 
Committee's comprehensive copyright review process, the Copyright 
Office needs significant upgrades to its technology; so the gentleman's 
amendment would ensure that the Register has someone on her staff with 
the knowledge and skills necessary to bring the Copyright Office 
information technology system into the 21st century.
  It is a useful amendment. It will help modernize the Copyright 
Office, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for offering it. I 
urge total support for the amendment.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Michigan. I 
appreciate the strong support from Chairman Goodlatte, and I urge all 
of my colleagues to support this good amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Judy Chu of California

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 115-95.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 3. CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to impact the 
     mandatory deposit requirements in title 17, United States 
     Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 275, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Judy Chu) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1695 and the amendment that I offer. This is a simple amendment 
that specifies that the mandatory deposit requirement of the Library of 
Congress will not be affected in any way by the underlying bill.
  Currently, applicants for copyright registration are required to 
submit two deposit copies to the Copyright Office. After the Office 
reviews the material to determine whether it qualifies for copyright 
protection, it makes the copies available for the Library for its use 
in its permanent collection.
  In fact, that is a large reason that the Copyright Office is located 
in the Library of Congress to begin with. In 1870, Librarian Ainsworth 
Rand Spofford convinced Congress that placing the Copyright Office in 
the Library would help build its collection through deposits of 
registered works, which it has done successfully.
  In the digital age, many argue that the mandatory deposit requirement 
should be modified in some way to better balance the needs of creators 
and the Library. My amendment states that H.R. 1695 may not be 
construed to impact the mandatory deposit requirement, and it makes 
clear that this issue is for another day. Passing this amendment will 
allow us to focus instead on the many benefits in turning the Register 
into a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position.
  The underlying bill is a result of more than 3 years of hearings, 
listening tours, and dozens of conversations with a wide range of 
stakeholders. The Judiciary Committee Members, led by Chairman 
Goodlatte and Ranking Member John Conyers, all sat through hours of 
hearings, and even traveled to different cities around the country to 
hear from all of our stakeholders who are impacted by our copyright 
policies.
  As the Judiciary Committee finished its thorough review of the 
Copyright Act, there was broad consensus that the Copyright Office 
should be modernized and restructured so that it is more accountable to 
Congress and to the public.
  This is why I, along with Congressman Tom Marino, introduced a 
bipartisan bill to carry out these changes. Our bill, the Copyright 
Office for the Digital Economy Act, the CODE Act, would also put in 
place a system similar to the one in H.R. 1695 to elevate the Register. 
We introduced this bill 2 years ago, before the new Librarian was sworn 
in and when President Obama was still in office. This has been a 
bipartisan issue grounded on sound policy considerations.
  I believe the changes proposed in H.R. 1695 will help improve the 
functionality of the Copyright Office, which members of the public rely 
on to protect their works or properly use copyrighted works. The core 
copyright industries are now responsible for $1.2 trillion of our GDP, 
which represents 7 percent of the economy. These industries also employ 
5.5 million people.
  We need to make sure the Copyright Office can modernize to meet the 
demands of the growing industries in our country, and its leadership 
that is accountable to Congress, which will help it move toward that 
direction. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, but I do not oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by Ms. Judy Chu. She has been a strong advocate for the 
protection of intellectual property as well as the modernization of the 
Copyright Office during the House Judiciary Committee's copyright 
review, and we miss her on the committee.
  One of the issues that has been raised while we have discussed 
updates to our Nation's copyright laws is the importance of preserving 
our mandatory deposit system. The mandatory deposit system that exists 
in our Nation's copyright law has resulted in numerous copyrighted 
works being added to the collections of the Library of Congress at no 
charge to taxpayers. Without the mandatory deposit system, the 
Library's collections would be vastly smaller, without a significant 
increase in taxpayer funding in order to buy these copyrighted works 
that are now provided free to the Library.
  Ms. Judy Chu's amendment ensures that this system is not disrupted as 
the Register position is made subject to the nomination and consent 
process, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking 
member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  This amendment makes clear that nothing in the bill would impact the 
Library of Congress' mandatory deposit requirement. For over 100 years, 
the Library has built its world-class collection, in large part, 
through the mandatory deposit requirement.
  So H.R. 1695 is a very narrow bill that only changes how the Register 
of Copyrights is selected. I think it is helpful, and I congratulate 
the gentlewoman for this very creative amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.

[[Page 6016]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Deutch

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410, 
noes 14, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 226]

                               AYES--410

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barragan
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Ellison
     Emmer
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes (KS)
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                                NOES--14

     Amash
     Brady (PA)
     Capuano
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (SC)
     Fudge
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Grothman
     Lofgren
     Richmond
     Rokita
     Rush
     Thompson (MS)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Carson (IN)
     Jeffries
     Marino
     Newhouse
     Pascrell
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1522

  Ms. SANCHEZ, Messrs. GRAVES of Georgia, RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, 
SESSIONS, PALAZZO, AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, WILSON of South Carolina, 
and BUTTERFIELD changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
1695) to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide additional 
responsibilities for the Register of Copyrights, and for other 
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 275, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 378, 
nays 48, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 227]

                               YEAS--378

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barragan
     Barton
     Bass
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd

[[Page 6017]]


     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Demings
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Ellison
     Emmer
     Engel
     Espaillat
     Estes (KS)
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                                NAYS--48

     Adams
     Beatty
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cartwright
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Correa
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Eshoo
     Fudge
     Huffman
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Lofgren
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     Norcross
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Shea-Porter
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Watson Coleman

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Marino
     Newhouse
     Pascrell
     Slaughter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1532

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, which the Chair will 
put de novo.
  The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 161, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 228]

                               YEAS--237

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barton
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Buchanan
     Budd
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Estes (KS)
     Esty (CT)
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawson (FL)
     Lipinski
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mitchell
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Richmond
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Torres
     Trott
     Tsongas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walker
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--161

     Aguilar
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Blum
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Crist
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gaetz
     Gallagher

[[Page 6018]]


     Gallego
     Gibbs
     Gottheimer
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Grothman
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Keating
     Kihuen
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     LaHood
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (MN)
     Lieu, Ted
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McSally
     Meehan
     Moolenaar
     Murphy (PA)
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Pallone
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Sewell (AL)
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Soto
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Watson Coleman
     Weber (TX)
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Rice (SC)
     Tonko
       

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Calvert
     Cartwright
     Coffman
     Cramer
     Demings
     Ellison
     Emmer
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Jenkins (WV)
     Lowey
     Marchant
     Marino
     Messer
     Moore
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Pascrell
     Quigley
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Russell
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Walorski
     Webster (FL)
     Yoho


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1540

  Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the Journal was approved.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on April 25, 
2017 and April 26, 2017 due to a family medical issue. Had I been 
present, I would have voted as follows:
  ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 222.
  ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 223.
  ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 224.
  ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 225.
  ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 226.
  ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 227.
  ``Yea'' for rollcall vote 228.

                          ____________________




         REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.J. RES. 50

  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be 
removed as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 50 in order to emphasize my support 
of term limits under H.J. Res. 6.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




      MOMENT OF SILENCE HONORING FORMER REPRESENTATIVE JAY DICKEY

  (Mr. WESTERMAN asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of 
former Congressman Jay Dickey, who represented the Fourth District of 
Arkansas for 8 years. In the days since Congressman Dickey's death last 
week at the age of 77, tributes have poured in, with many noting his 
sense of civic duty, his love of family, and, most of all, his faith in 
God.
  If you spent much time with Jay, you likely reached a point in the 
conversation where he would pause and ask a pointed question: When you 
die, where will you spend eternity?
  I remember Jay asking me that question, and when I quickly responded 
``Heaven,'' he didn't let me off easy, as he followed up with: How do 
you know? After which, we had a long discussion sharing our common 
faith in Christ.
  There are current Members of this House who served with Jay, the 
first Republican to represent Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District. 
Regardless of political party, he was a representative of all 
Arkansans, and he genuinely cared about people.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House to join me and the 
Members of the Arkansas congressional delegation in observing a moment 
of silence in remembrance of Congressman Jay Dickey.

                          ____________________




                      100 DAYS OF BROKEN PROMISES

  (Mr. VEASEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, this Saturday marks 100 days of broken 
promises made to the American worker by the Trump administration. On 
the campaign trail, he promised to fight for the American worker and 
create jobs right here at home. Since he has taken office, he has done 
the opposite.
  During the first few weeks of his administration, the President 
signed an executive order to raise mortgage rates for new homeowners. 
The administration also killed worker protections for individual 
workers in this country, and then they also have done nothing, 
absolutely nothing to deal with Davis-Bacon and prevailing wages, which 
guarantees American workers the right to earn more money. Finally, the 
administration gutted another protection that would have made it harder 
for companies to secure Federal contracts if they have a history of 
labor law violations.
  It is more than clear that this administration does not plan to fight 
for the American worker, the American man and woman out there making it 
every day in America. Instead, they are doing everything they can to 
help the President's billionaire buddies and to promote golf courses 
and other businesses that they own.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we will continue to stand up to the 
administration when it turns its back on working class Americans.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1545
                          DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE

  (Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Days of 
Remembrance and pay tribute to all those who were affected by the 
enormity, the calamity, and the horrors of the Holocaust.
  On April 11, 1945, at 3 p.m. in the afternoon, General Patton's Third 
Army liberated Buchenwald concentration camp, with the help of my 
father-in-law, Bill McKenzie, then a young 22-year-old U.S. Army 
officer, fresh from the corps at Texas A&M University.
  Bill said of that day: ``I will not describe the horrible sight of 
our entry into Buchenwald, but I will tell you this--that the 
crematorium was still burning, dead were stacked like cordwood on large 
trailers, and the living dead were starving.''
  Some 65 years later, I would deliver the eulogy at Bill's funeral and 
read a condolence letter sent to our family from the nephew of a 
survivor he rescued that day.
  As a member of the Greatest Generation, Bill will always be 
remembered by us as a hero, and his role liberating innocent people 
from the Nazi Germany death camps is a proud distinction for our 
family. His story serves as a reminder that these atrocities have no 
place in our world.

                          ____________________




                        NATIONAL DAY OF SILENCE

  (Mr. PANETTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the National Day of 
Silence, which took place last Friday, April 21. That is a day when 
young people come together to raise awareness about the issues faced by 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. In fact, it is the 
only day that highlights issues affecting our LGBT youth. It is that 
type of day that will lead to more acceptance and inclusiveness in our 
society.
  Isa Moreno is a student from my district, in the town of Watsonville. 
She remained silent on that day. After, she

[[Page 6019]]

said: ``Now, more than ever, we as a nation must understand the 
importance of unity and solidarity.''
  I couldn't agree more. As a member of the LGBT Equality Caucus, we 
work to ensure inclusiveness in our country by fighting for policies 
that support our LGBT youth in our communities.
  Many students like Isa took a vow of silence last Friday. So now we, 
as leaders, must take responsibility to speak out, to speak up, and to 
step up for all Americans living in fear because of who they love and 
who they are.

                          ____________________




                          DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE

  (Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this week we observe the 
Days of Remembrance, the Nation's annual commemoration of the 
Holocaust. The Holocaust was a systematic, government-sponsored 
persecution and murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime and its 
collaborators.
  Congress established the Days of Remembrance in 1980. Each year, 
State and local governments, military bases, workplaces, schools, 
religious organizations, and civic centers host remembrance activities 
for their communities.
  The Holocaust is an unthinkable scar on humanity, and, for this 
reason, we gather annually to mourn the loss of so many lives and honor 
those who survived.
  We also remember those who risked their lives to rescue and protect 
their friends and neighbors. We remember the American soldiers who 
fought in World War II to liberate many from concentration camps and to 
defend the defenseless.
  And we remember, because, as Miriam Oster said so eloquently: 
``Education and remembrance are the only cures for hatred and 
bigotry.''
  We will not be silent. We cannot be indifferent to the suffering of 
others. May we always remember and always pledge: Never again.

                          ____________________




                       PROTECTING SOCIAL SECURITY

  (Mr. CRIST asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CRIST. Mr. Speaker, as vice chair of the Seniors Task Force, I 
rise in strong defense of Social Security. Recent reports that the 
White House is considering defunding Social Security and cutting Social 
Security disability benefits are troubling, to say the least.
  Nearly 61 million retirees, veterans, disabled workers, widows, and 
children rely on their Social Security, including over 186,000 in my 
district in Florida alone. On their behalf, I have a simple message: 
Hands off their Social Security.
  President Trump promised the American people he would not cut Social 
Security. That is a promise we are going to help him keep.
  Hands off Social Security.

                          ____________________




              SECURING THE BORDER AND THE HEROIN EPIDEMIC

  (Mr. ROTHFUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, one of the big issues in last year's 
Presidential campaign was border security. As we mark 100 days of the 
Trump administration, we should acknowledge how President Trump has 
restored confidence and morale among our Border Patrol agents. They now 
know that our President will back them as they work to enforce our 
Nation's immigration laws.
  The agents told me personally about their renewed ability to do their 
job during my recent trip to inspect the southern border. What was 
remarkable was that I heard the same thing from every agent, man or 
women, regardless of ethnic background.
  President Trump understands that we have an urgent and solemn 
responsibility to stop the flood of heroin and other narcotics pouring 
across our southern border, poisoning our communities.
  We must secure our border and end this scourge for the sake of 
mothers like the one in my district who lost her beloved son to a 
heroin overdose and asked God to ``damn heroin.'' I look forward to 
more action in the next 100 days as we continue to work to secure our 
border.

                          ____________________




                 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH FUNDING

  (Mr. COHEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Rotary International recognized 
champions who have worked to eradicate polio around the world. Rotary 
International has done a great job, and the Bill and Melinda Gates 
Foundation has, too.
  But as one of two congressional Members who were purple hearts of the 
polio years, I wish to thank them, but also say how dreadful it is--and 
awful--that the budget that is being proposed will reduce funding by 
almost 20 percent to the National Institutes of Health and also to the 
CDC.
  The CDC and the National Institutes of Health protect us from health 
scourges and look for cures and treatments that can protect people in 
the future. The National Institutes of Health needs to have more 
funding, not less, and so does the CDC.

                          ____________________




            CONVICTED CRIMINAL ALIENS KEEP COMING TO AMERICA

  (Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 40-year-old Mexican national Oscar 
Perez Rangel had already been deported twice. He left the United States 
with a host of felony convictions, including attempted robbery by 
firearms and illegal reentry. But holes in the U.S. border allowed the 
outlaw to sneak back into the U.S. a third time.
  Here in the U.S., Rangel's girlfriend ran a daycare center. It was 
there that he set his sights on a next victim--an unsuspecting 12-year-
old girl. For 3 months, he molested and raped her.
  Finally, he was caught and charged. Eventually, he will be turned 
over to ICE and deported again.
  Mr. Speaker, we must have the moral will to secure the border. 
Criminals who violently assault, rape, and pillage America are slipping 
back into the country under the radar. We must prevent criminal aliens 
like Rangel from reentering our country after they are legally 
deported.
  Secure the southern border. Do it now, or there will be more 12-year-
old victims.
  And that is just the way it is.

                          ____________________




                     WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND

  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are talking about criminals, but 
I want to point out one that potentially has been in the White House. 
He was a general. He spoke at the national convention of the Republican 
Party. He said, ``Lock her up.''
  But when he filled out his disclosure form to work in the White 
House, he conveniently left out that he received money from two foreign 
governments. A former general who defended this Nation did not fill out 
that he received this money. He sat next to Vladimir Putin for dinner, 
but did not fill this form out properly.
  Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about Mike Flynn. It is obvious 
that we in the House of Representatives do something to point out when 
we see something that is illegal going on.
  Mr. Speaker, what comes around goes around. He said, ``Lock her up.'' 
Well, it looks like he might get locked up.
  And that is the way it is gonna be.

                          ____________________




                         REMEMBERING JAY DICKEY

  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to address the 
House

[[Page 6020]]

for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, we just had the Arkansas 
delegation. My colleagues may have noticed that I was with them. Alaska 
and Arkansas have a great deal of similarity, both starting with an A.
  I served with Jay Dickey. I can tell you that he was my friend.
  To his family, even the other day when I heard that he had passed 
away, I tried to call his cell phone hoping that they would answer it, 
and it was Jay's voice. Here is a gentleman in this body that was a 
great basketball player, a good coach, tennis player, and a fine 
athlete. But more than that, he was a friend to many Congressmen in 
these Halls.
  As was mentioned, he tried to save us all. Some he succeeded with and 
some he did not. He worked with me for many years and finally 
accomplished his goal, and I thank him from the bottom of my heart.
  I know the Lord is taking care of him because he was a true American. 
He was a person that cherished his job, served his district well, and 
was an ally and a friend for those that believed.
  I want to thank Jay Dickey for his efforts to make this country 
better.

                          ____________________




                COMMUNICATION FROM THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bergman) laid before the House the 
following communication from the Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Democratic 
Leader:

                                                   April 25, 2017.
     Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan: Pursuant to section 4003(e) of the 21st 
     Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255), I am pleased to appoint 
     Dr. Steven Lane of Palo Alto, California to the Health 
     Information Technology Advisory Committee.
       Thank you for your attention to this appointment.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1600
       REMOVAL OF DAVID PULPHUS' PAINTING FROM THE CANNON TUNNEL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include 
any extraneous material on the subject of my special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, 10 months ago, I was pleased to welcome David 
Pulphus, a very talented young constituent of mine from St. Louis, to 
the U.S. Capitol complex, as we unveiled his painting entitled, 
Untitled #1, which you see here tonight.
  David's work was a unanimous first-place winner in the annual 
Congressional Art Competition in Missouri's First Congressional 
District. I have been pleased to sponsor this competition in St. Louis 
for the last 16 years without interruption and incident.
  For those of you who may not know, many other Members of Congress 
conduct this contest in their districts as well. In fact, this painting 
was one of more than 400 student entries from across the Nation that 
were reviewed, accepted, and approved last June for public display in 
the Cannon tunnel by the Architect of the Capitol. Members of Congress 
do not select the artists. We do not approve or disapprove of any of 
the artistic concepts, and we have no role in judging the competition.
  We simply provide a public forum for the most talented young artists 
in our districts to display their winning artwork in the U.S. Capitol 
complex. Yet, without cause or reasonable process and after being 
viewed repeatedly by Members of Congress, congressional staffers, and 
thousands of visitors without incident or concern, my constituent's 
winning entry was removed in an act of politically motivated, 
unconstitutional, retroactive censorship.
  That injustice was initiated by pressure from certain alternative-
right bloggers and Mr. Eric Bolling, a host on FOX News channel, who 
created a mean-spirited and factually inaccurate media campaign to 
improve his ratings on the back of a young man, and to ultimately force 
the painting to be removed by the Architect of the Capitol.
  After repeated acts of petty theft by renegade Members of Congress 
who removed the painting without any authorization and after a storm of 
rightwing media pressure, the Speaker of the House forced the Architect 
of the Capitol to trample on the rights of my constituent by ruling 
that this painting, which he had already approved 10 months ago, was 
retroactively disqualified.
  This unwarranted, arbitrary, and unconstitutional act of censorship 
will not stand. Now, let me be clear: I do not approve or disapprove of 
this painting. I did not approve or disapprove the concept of the 
artwork. I did not judge the competition, but the Architect of the 
Capitol reviewed, approved, and accepted this student's artwork for 
public display without incident, comment, or concern, just like every 
other entry that is displayed in this public exhibition.
  Only after the most hateful, intolerant, and reckless media campaign, 
combined with enormous political pressure from the Speaker and other 
Members, the Architect of the Capitol miraculously traveled back in 
time to disqualify the very same painting that he had approved 10 
months ago.
  Perhaps we should advise the National Academy of Sciences of the 
Architect of the Capitol's newfound ability to bend the space-time 
continuum in order to retroactively respond to the most extreme voices 
in the majority so that they could more easily suppress the rights of 
my young constituent. It did great harm to an innocent young man who 
tried to do the right thing.
  Because of this outrageous act of censorship, David Pulphus has been 
subjected to the most vile, racist, and hateful attacks on social media 
and on talk radio. He has also been deprived of the honor of listing 
his first place victory in the Congressional Art Competition on his 
resume. He has even been attacked by the Speaker of the House who 
called his award winning work ``disgusting.''
  So on top of depriving David of his First Amendment rights, the 
majority and the Architect of the Capitol have placed a terrible 
personal burden on this bright, talented young man. David does not 
deserve that. That is wrong. That is totally unacceptable, and the 
Speaker and the Architect of the Capitol should be ashamed of 
themselves.
  This shameful decision also sent a chilling message to young 
Americans. It told young Americans that their views are not valued. 
Their voices are not respected. Their creativity and passions are not 
welcome, and that is, sadly, here, in the people's House, their First 
Amendment rights are no longer protected. That is a terrible precedent 
to set for future generations who look to us to defend their freedoms.
  So my friends, this is really not about a student art competition 
anymore. It is about defending the Constitution. It is just pathetic 
that some Republican Members and rightwing media types who constantly 
refer to themselves as constitutional conservatives don't think that 
that same document protects the fundamental free speech rights of my 
young constituent.
  You can be certain that I will fight to defend this young man's right 
to express himself because his artwork is true for him, and he is 
entitled to that protection under the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Clay for his discussion 
here. I think it is courageous and necessary. To begin with, the 
painting's removal by the Architect of the Capitol was an infringement 
on the free speech rights of the artist and on the Congressman, 
yourself, Mr. Clay, from Missouri.

[[Page 6021]]

  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that: 
``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . 
. '' And it is undisputed that the First Amendment's free speech 
guarantee extends to artistic expression, including visual arts. This 
is true even when such expression may be offensive to many people or to 
some people.
  While Members who removed the artist's painting may have acted based 
on their belief that the artwork's viewpoint was offensive, that belief 
cannot trump the free-speech rights of the artist and of you, yourself, 
Congressman Clay. I congratulate you for putting this discussion into 
the Record.
  Mr. Speaker. This past January within the very confines of the 
Capitol complex, we witnessed a direct assault against the First 
Amendment when several Republican Members of Congress unilaterally 
removed a painting by high school senior David Pulphus from the 2016. 
Congressional Art Competition display in the Cannon Tunnel.
  The painting, sponsored by our colleague--Representative William Lacy 
Clay--had been displayed in the Cannon Tunnel along with more than 400 
winners of the Art Competition for nearly 7 months without incident or 
comment.
  And, rather than upholding the artist's right to free expression and 
Representative Clay's prerogative to sponsor student artwork from his 
district, the Architect of the Capitol capitulated to political 
pressure generated by the right-wing media outlets and ratified these 
Members' acts of vigilante censorship by having the painting 
permanently removed from the Congressional Art Competition display in 
the Cannon Tunnel.
  This artwork, seemingly inspired by the events in Ferguson, Missouri 
in 2014 and other incidents that sparked tension between police and 
minority communities, depicts a protest, with two police officers and a 
young man facing each other in a standoff, all of three which have 
animalistic features.
  In the background, protesters look on and a young man of color 
appears to be depicted in a crucifixion tableau.
  Whatever message one draws from this painting, several things are 
quite clear.
  To begin with, the painting's removal by the Architect of the Capitol 
was an infringement on the free speech rights of Mr. Pulphus and 
Representative Clay.
  The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that 
``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.''
  And, it is undisputed that the First Amendment's free speech 
guarantee extends to artistic expression, including visual art.
  This is true even when such expression may be deeply offensive to 
many people.
  As the Supreme Court recognized in F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, the 
``fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient 
reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that 
gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it 
constitutional protection.''
  While the Members who removed Mr. Pulphus's painting may have acted 
based on their belief that the artwork's viewpoint was offensive, that 
belief cannot trump the free speech rights of the artist and 
Representative Clay.
  Nor does it justify the Architect's removal of the painting in 
response to pressure from these and other Members who found the 
painting offensive.
  Once the House established the Congressional Art Competition and 
opened the Cannon Tunnel to display artwork sponsored by each 
individual Member office, it created a limited public forum.
  Having created such a forum, individual House Members and the 
Architect cannot then constitutionally discriminate against expression 
within that forum based on the viewpoint expressed.
  Yet, that is precisely what happened here.
  Unfortunately, the painting's removal was part of a broader pattern 
of behavior by the Majority to undermine the fundamental right of free 
expression in the House.
  For instance, in January the House adopted an unconstitutional gag 
rule that would allow the imposition of fines of up to $2,500 on a 
Member for using an electronic device to record, post, or live-stream 
activity on the House floor.
  This rule was a thinly-veiled response to the protest undertaken last 
year by Democratic Members on the House floor with regard to the 
Majority's failure to consider comprehensive gun reform.
  The rule is a direct attack against the Minority's right to political 
expression and it is clearly intended to stifle the American public's 
ability to access that expression.
  While it is easy to think that these matters concern only one young 
artist or a group of House Members, every American should be deeply 
concerned about such kinds of censorship.
  Tyranny starts in small ways. Censor a painting here, a poem there. 
Ban photos in some instances, videos in others.
  When such seemingly minor acts go unanswered, it invites more 
oppressive conduct in the future.
  Ensuring freedom requires vigilance and a willingness to push back 
vigorously against every instance of censorship.
  This is why I applaud the federal lawsuit filed by Mr. Pulphus and 
Representative Clay seeking to vindicate their free speech rights 
though it is shameful that they were forced to go to court at all.
  And, while the trial court incorrectly concluded that the First 
Amendment does not protect Mr. Pulphus and Representative Clay, I am 
confident this conclusion will be overturned on appeal.
  All Americans must be free to speak truth to power.
  Therefore, it is imperative that we draw a line in the sand now, lest 
we encourage further and even more troubling acts of censorship in the 
future.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan, the ranking 
member of the House Judiciary Committee.
  At this time, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. 
Adams), my friend, an art education Ph.D., a gallery owner and artist, 
and member of the Congressional Arts Caucus.
  Ms. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank my colleague 
from Missouri, Representative Clay, for his concern, for his courage, 
for standing up and speaking up to ensure that his constituents' and 
others' First Amendment rights are protected by this Congress, and for 
organizing this Special Order hour this evening.
  I appreciate very much the opportunity to join Representative Clay, 
and I proudly stand with him and my other colleagues to speak in 
defense of the First Amendment rights afforded to citizens of the 
Constitution of the United States.
  As the 12th District Representative from North Carolina, as a 
practicing professional artist and art educator, as a curator, as a 
retired 40-year college arts professor, I am pleased to join with 
Representative Clay in expressing my support for freedom of visual 
expression and creativity, especially when it comes to supporting 
talented young students.
  I have learned through my professional arts education and management 
careers that, yes, the arts are nice, but, beyond being nice, they are 
absolutely necessary and essential in helping enrich our lives. The 
arts are unique to our being, and they are what make us human.
  Artists connect the past to the present, they convey our unique 
experiences, and they are presented in many forms--sometimes familiar, 
other times unfamiliar. The arts are a universal language that speak to 
people everywhere to help them to understand diversity, cultures, and 
some of the most complicated of issues. Therefore, having the freedom 
to make art is essential to creative expression.
  Freedom of expression is everyone's freedom. And our Founding Fathers 
enshrined the expressions of freedom of speech in all forms--in music, 
in written and spoken word, in theater, and through visual imagery and 
composition--in the Bill of Rights.
  Under the First Amendment, all art forms and all artistic expressions 
are constitutionally protected. Our Founding Fathers who created our 
country and launched our Nation as the world's role model in democracy 
believed that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were important 
enough to guarantee protection in our country's founding documents. If 
our Founding Fathers, the brightest minds of that generation, thought 
that artistic expression was important enough to protect in our Bill of 
Rights, then what right do we have to take this away and censor the 
artistic community?
  The ACLU said: ``. . . a free society is based on the principle that 
each and every individual has the right to decide what art or 
entertainment he or she

[[Page 6022]]

wants--or does not want--to receive or create. Once you allow the 
government to censor someone else, you cede to it the power to censor 
you, or something you like. Censorship is like poison gas: A powerful 
weapon that can harm you when the wind shifts.''
  As a nation, we face many threats, both internally and externally. We 
are a Nation of diverse thought, diverse people, and strong diverse 
principles. However, when we stand by and allow our artistic community 
to be censored or allow threats to silence our press, we become our own 
greatest threat. And when we reject facts and censor artistic 
expression just because it makes us uncomfortable or because we don't 
like it, we are becoming the tyrants that our Founding Fathers risked 
their lives to protect and escape from.
  So the question of what is appropriate art is not a new question. 
Since the beginning of our country, our citizens have wrestled with 
what to do when they are offended by a work or art in any form. Court 
case after court case has tested governmental censorship of artistic 
expression, and the Supreme Court has continued to uphold our founding 
principles of freedom of expression and speech.
  In the 1931 case, Stromberg v. California, the Supreme Court ruled 
that symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. The ruling 
ensured that all art forms, music, paintings, plays, and other artistic 
expressions are protected by the First Amendment.
  In the 1982 decision, the Board of Education v. Pico, the Supreme 
Court ruled that local school boards may not remove books from school 
library shelves simply because they disliked the ideas contained in 
those books. Like the removal of the books from libraries, the removal 
of Mr. Pulphus' painting was a blatant violation of his First Amendment 
rights.
  The First Amendment guarantees that our government cannot make 
substantive decisions about the content of a work of art. Expression 
can only be limited if, and only if, that expression will cause direct 
and imminent harm such as yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater.

                              {time}  1615

  Our government's role is not to censor but to ensure that artists are 
able to freely express themselves without fear of censorship. Our 
government did not protect this young man's First Amendment rights. 
Instead, it acted as a retroactive censor on his work.
  Here is an example of our government making a decision based on 
content they disapproved of and preventing this work because of its 
subject and because some legislators weren't knowledgeable enough about 
it to understand it from being displayed in a public place.
  Justice Louis Brandeis, in his defense of free speech, wrote:

       It is hazardous to discourage thought and hope and 
     imagination; that fear breeds repression, and that repression 
     breeds hate, and that hate menaces stable government. The 
     path to safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely 
     supposed grievances and proposed remedies.

  Justice Brandeis' words were written in 1927, 90 years ago, almost a 
century, but they still echo true today. Censorship out of fear, out of 
misunderstanding or pain or dislike of a work is fundamentally anti-
American and unconstitutional.
  For more than 4 decades as a visual arts professor, I taught my 
students that you are going to see a lot of art throughout your 
lifetime. Some images you will like and some you won't especially like. 
And some will be disturbing and some confusing. But I reminded my 
students that their responsibility as viewers was to make every attempt 
to be able to say that you don't like it because you at least 
understand it.
  Mr. Speaker, knowledge is power. Mr. Pulphus' work did not create 
direct or imminent harm, but his work did depict an uncomfortable 
reality that is pervasive across our country.
  Unfortunately, violence is a way of life in many communities 
throughout America. As a matter of fact, it is too prevalent. But for 
this young man, violence in his community was a life that he knew most 
of his life. It was a life he was intrinsically as an artist compelled 
to visually talk about on his canvas.
  As a matter of fact, he had a right to talk about it, and, in 
reality, he needed to talk about it. I admire him for his courage. As a 
teacher, I can tell you that, visually, his utilization of 
compositional elements and principles and forms showed an extraordinary 
talent.
  In my estimation, we failed as viewers to do our part, and we didn't 
make an effort to really see, but we just merely looked at the work. 
But most especially, we didn't seize the opportunity to learn so that 
we could enhance our capacity to build and reinforce positive 
relationships in our community.
  This painting offered us a chance to have a real conversation about 
race and police and community violence and institutional racism. But 
instead of seizing this opportunity, we have to continue to fight to 
protect this young artist's First Amendment rights.
  Heated debate and discussion is the hallmark of our democracy. 
However, when arguments are censored, when the artists are told what 
they are able to produce, when expression is silenced, our democracy is 
then threatened.
  And since this incident, as you have heard, the Congressional 
Institute has changed the rules for the Congressional Art Competition. 
Work submitted to the competition depicting contemporary political 
controversy or sensationalist or gruesome nature are not allowed.
  But I am not here to criticize the work of the Congressional 
Institute, but as a professional artist myself, only to ask this 
question: What benefit can come from limiting our young artists from 
creating?
  A democracy works when people stay engaged, when people participate. 
But by censoring what is in our public spaces, we are creating barriers 
for political discourse and we are creating fear of retaliation.
  Artists are visual storytellers and we are entrusted with a unique 
responsibility to use the power of the arts to inform, to educate, and 
to empower our communities.
  Noted African-American artist and scholar Dr. Samella Lewis of 
California said that ``African-American artists have a primary 
obligation to community, to understand, and to use the elements of 
their cultural heritage to produce an art that is diverse, reflecting 
our diverse interests, materials techniques, and to communicate those 
messages to the audiences we want to reach.''
  Removing this young man's work was a degrading and insensitive 
action, which signaled to this young, aspiring, gifted student that his 
work is valueless, that his story is not worthy to be told. But most 
especially, it put into question the right and the responsibility that 
he has as an artist to express himself in visual imagery and symbolic 
competition.
  It is not up to the government to decide what work has value or whose 
story should be told. The removal of Mr. Pulphus' work sets a dangerous 
precedent. Congress is now making content decisions on works displayed 
in the U.S. Capitol and is limiting what types of art will be 
exhibited. To some, this issue may not seem important, but the scope of 
the actions that have taken place in the U.S. Capitol is tremendous.
  Just because somebody's sensibility is offended doesn't give that 
person the right to ban or censor a work. In fact, the First Amendment 
prevents that.
  However, as this gross overreach of power in removing his work 
proves, just because the Constitution prevents something doesn't always 
mean that it won't happen. But it is our duty to hold our government 
responsible for protecting the sanctity of the Constitution and the 
Bill of Rights.
  That is why I am honored, as a 40-year arts educator, as a member of 
the Congressional Art Caucus, and as a professional artist to join 
Representative Clay and all of my colleagues in speaking today about 
the importance of the First Amendment as it relates to the creative and 
the professional obligations and rights of the visual artist.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for her thoughts, her words, as well as her expertise in the field of 
art. She is

[[Page 6023]]

probably the only qualified art critic serving in Congress today. So 
thank I thank her so much.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Cohen), my friend, an attorney and former legal adviser to the 
Memphis Police Department.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I, indeed, also enjoyed the remarks that just 
preceded me and that Mr. Conyers made and Mr. Clay made concerning this 
issue.
  I rise today in support of art, freedom of expression, freedom of 
speech, but also Black Lives Matter and police officers who follow the 
rules, which 98 percent or more do, who treat citizens appropriately 
and risk their lives to keep us safe. And I mourn each officer that 
loses their life or is injured in protecting us and having ordered 
liberty.
  But I rise in opposition to censorship, which is anathema to me, and 
police officers who go beyond the law--that percentage that do--and 
soil the badge they wear and use deadly force inappropriately, which 
has occurred too many times sometimes because they just don't react 
properly in the heat of battle, sometimes for other reasons, too often 
upon Black people, which does tend to indicate a prejudice that exists 
in certain people's minds. Black lives do matter, and people haven't 
recognized that, and we need to.
  The removal of David Pulphus' painting from the Cannon tunnel is 
troubling on many levels. It raises serious questions about Congress' 
commitment to the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of 
expression. We take an oath to support the Constitution and should do 
so in our actions as well as our words, as well as in our oath.
  Benjamin Franklin warned us that freedom of speech is a principal 
pillar of a free government. When this support is taken away, the 
constitution of a free society is dissolved.
  Secondly, it raises serious questions about censorship. 
Unfortunately, in my hometown of Memphis, we have a history that is 
sometimes not so good on particular cases of race and free expression.
  That long history of artistic censorship oftentimes related to race 
as well as sex, and for nearly 3 decades, in the early part of the 20th 
century, Memphis had a censor, a public censor, appointed by the 
government named Lloyd T. Binford. He served as the chairman of the 
Memphis Board of Censors. They banned movies. They banned movies like 
``Curley'' in the 1940s because it showed White and Black children in 
school together.
  He prevented Memphians from seeing major celebrities like Lena Horne, 
Duke Ellington, Nat King Cole, Cab Calloway in our local movie 
theaters. He was a racist. ``Binfordizing'' became a word. Artistic 
words that were wrong and Congress must be ever mindful of the slippery 
slope of censorship.
  Thirdly, and perhaps most important, this painting raises serious 
questions about public policy. Congress should be debating questions of 
public policy, not banning expressions of them.
  The events that took place in Ferguson, Missouri, which are well 
expressed by this painting, were a wake-up call to many in our Nation 
about police use of deadly force, injustice in our inner cities, and 
turmoil rising in our inner cities.
  Sobering questions about the fairness of our criminal justice system 
and about race were raised. And a painting such as this that reflects 
those issues is most appropriate for display in the hallway where these 
paintings and artworks are shown because it is representative of a 
major slice of America in that year.
  That, more than most other paintings and artworks there, show 
something that is relevant to what is happening today and has occupied 
the news in a major way.
  For too long, justice has seemed too lacking, and we saw it in 
Ferguson. Mr. Clay and I have worked together for display of this 
artwork. I questioned some professors on another issue, lawyers that 
specialize in First Amendment issues, speech issues in the Judiciary 
Committee, and to a one they said it appeared to be censorship and was 
wrong and was violative.
  Of course there is some talk that, well, it is government speech and 
maybe that is different. But you know some of the same people that have 
opposed this painting are the same people that say the rules should 
apply to Congress. Whatever laws we pass should apply to Congressmen 
the same as they apply to other people, and we shouldn't have special 
privileges. But those people decided on their own to exempt a painting 
they found distasteful which wouldn't have been prohibited anyplace 
else because of free speech. They violated their own precepts; the same 
precepts they may be violating today in other rooms where they are 
discussing a health bill that will exempt them from the health bill 
sanctions or requirements and not require them, if they live in a 
State, to not have the essential benefits of the Affordable Care Act.
  So I rise today to commend Congressman Clay for his work, to thank 
him for his work with me and Senator Duckworth on the Police Training 
and Independent Review Act, which the need for is expressed here in 
this artwork. That is why it is so important.
  This communicates a story. Beauty is wonderful, and a lot of the 
artwork is photographs and beauty. Nice. Fine. Places, fine. Content 
and ideas are more important. It is always more important to have 
artwork that challenges your mind and makes you think: What is this 
about?
  As I look at this painting and I think about it, sure, there are a 
couple of police officers--two police officers in particular--in a 
certain manner of being displayed. But there is a third police officer 
on the right that is not shown this same way. And if you look at this 
painting, you can see this painting says: not all police officers are 
the same. Some are questionable, some aren't. It revolved around a 
major incident in our city, St. Louis, Ferguson, but the arch is in 
there and expresses that well.
  This painting should not have been removed. Congressman Clay is right 
to stand up for the First Amendment and for his constituent.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help restore this painting to 
its rightful place in the Cannon tunnel and to allow people to see it 
and make their own decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you and appreciate being a part of this.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, let me also thank my friend from Tennessee who 
happens to be a member of the House Judiciary Committee. As he stated, 
we are working together on police reform legislation. I appreciate his 
services.
  Mr. COHEN. And I am an art critic.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, he is an art critic.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Raskin), my friend, a Constitutional scholar and professor.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Clay for convening us this 
evening to discuss this very important matter.
  Why is it so important?
  Well, we live in a time of rampant official lawlessness and 
disrespect for the Constitution of the United States.
  But I am not here to talk about the Emoluments Clause or the power of 
Congress to declare war, or about equal protection. I am here to join 
my colleagues in talking about an incident of artistic discrimination 
committed by this institution, an assault on the First Amendment.
  Why is it so important?
  I was thinking about a professor I had who wrote a book about broken 
windows. The thesis of the book basically was that if windows are 
broken in the neighborhood and nothing is done about it, it sends the 
message that you can go on to bigger and better things. In other words, 
petty crimes and misdemeanors unaddressed go on to become high crimes 
and misdemeanors.
  When we started the 115th Congress, unfortunately, within the first 
week or two, we started with a broken Constitutional window, Mr. Clay, 
because we allowed, we tolerated, and we countenanced an act of 
vigilante discrimination and censorship by certain Members against 
speech by the constituents of other Members.

[[Page 6024]]

  So I want to tell the story to the people of America, especially the 
young people of America, who have open minds and open hearts, and I am 
delighted that so many young people are in the chamber tonight to hear 
about what happened here because this is a very important moment in the 
history of this institution.

                              {time}  1630

  Now, I am a professor of constitutional law by training. I did that 
for 25 years before I came to Congress, and I teach, also, the First 
Amendment.
  There are six rights contained in the First Amendment, and I hope all 
of you learn the six rights. They are: the right to petition for a 
redress of grievances; the free exercise of religion; the right of 
assembly; the right of free press; the right of no establishment of 
religion; and then, last but certainly not least, the right of freedom 
of speech.
  Here in Congress, since 1982, we have had a Congressional Arts 
Competition. It is a magnificent statement of American values. We 
invite Members from every district in America--there are 435 districts 
here, plus five Delegates who come from territories or the District of 
Columbia--so there are a total of 440 that are eligible.
  Each one impanels a group of artists. They have a whole process, and 
the best artwork is adjudicated and then brought to Washington. You can 
find them in the tunnel connecting the Cannon House Office Building to 
the Capitol Building, to the Chamber where we are right now. There are 
hundreds of beautiful, extraordinary, interesting, vivacious, 
controversial paintings done by the young people of America.
  So what is the issue? Well, we are living in a time of political 
correctness. Let's say it plain. Sometimes the political correctness 
comes from the left. It happened recently at Berkeley in California, 
where the college canceled a planned appearance by Ann Coulter, a 
rightwing commentator whose views are totally anathema to me, but they 
canceled her speech.
  Now, in fairness to Berkeley, they said there had been violence there 
and they thought there might be violence again. But there was such a 
storm of outrage about this example of a kind of leftwing political 
correctness, they reversed the decision and they said she could come. 
They understood it was their responsibility to make sure that her 
speech could proceed without being disrupted and broken up, so they did 
the right thing.
  What are we experiencing here right where you sit in the Congress of 
the United States, in the House of Representatives? We are experiencing 
an example of a rightwing political correctness run amok. It is 
rightwing political censorship because some people didn't like somebody 
else's expression. Instead of walking on to the next painting, they 
decided to take it down, remove it, and return it to the office of 
Congressman Clay. Not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, 
but five times they took this painting down.
  Congressman Clay and I wrote a letter to Speaker Ryan protesting this 
act of vigilante censorship right here in the Congress of the United 
States. Speaker Ryan, instead of standing up for the First Amendment, 
instead of standing up for the Speech and Debate Clause, instead of 
standing up for artistic expression, instead of standing up for freedom 
and teaching a lesson to the young people of America, he called the 
painting disgusting and then initiated an official process whereby they 
censored it. For the first time in the history of this competition 
going back to 1982, 35 years, they censored a painting.
  Now, luckily they have made this young artist one of the most famous 
artists in America now, and we can all wish him nothing but magnificent 
fortune as he goes ahead to develop his skills and his artistic voice. 
They were not able, I hope, to crush the spirit of this young man, but 
they did something really deeply injurious to the Republic of the 
United States. They engaged in an act of naked viewpoint discrimination 
against a work of art.
  Now, what are the constitutional values here that need to be 
vindicated for artists like David Pulphus or the winner from my 
district last year, Alannah Van Horn, who did a self-portrait?
  Let's just be clear about one thing: these paintings hung for 6 
months before the vigilante censors in the House of Representatives 
decided to come and take them down. For 6 months, they didn't harm 
anybody, they didn't hurt anybody, they didn't cause a riot, they 
didn't cause a ruckus, nothing--until they decided somehow that this 
painting ran afoul of their political correctness litmus test for what 
is acceptable in Congress.
  So what is really at stake here? Well, first of all, it is the rights 
of the Member who sponsored this painting.
  I want to say I am so impressed by the courage and the strength and 
the determination of Representative Clay to stand with his constituent 
and his constituency as well as with the Constitution here.
  He brought a First Amendment lawsuit with Mr. Pulphus not for money, 
not for damages, but for a preliminary and permanent injunction against 
congressional censorship of this painting. So they went to court.
  They had a very simple argument. The First Amendment says Congress 
shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That is it. That is 
one of the six rights that I referenced when I opened my speech. 
Congress can't sensor speech.
  Congress just censored speech.
  The judge in the case, Judge Bates of the United States District 
Court, rendered a fascinating opinion. He found that this was indeed a 
clear case of viewpoint discrimination. It was censorship based on the 
views or the perspective of the artist. There was little doubt, he 
said, the government was engaged in a blatant act of viewpoint 
discrimination.
  There are lots of cases that make clear that viewpoint discrimination 
is unacceptable in the United States, like Rosenberger v. University of 
Virginia, which said that UVA could not set up a program for young 
journalists and newspapers and magazines at UVA and exclude those from 
a religious point of view. The Court said, if you are going to set up a 
forum for speech like that, you can't single out one point of view and 
then suppress it.
  It was the same idea in Texas v. Johnson in 1995, when the Supreme 
Court said that the right to burn a flag as a political protest is 
constitutionally protected. You don't have to agree with it, but other 
people have the right to burn the flag if it is their flag. That is 
their property.
  The Court pointed out also that, in America, flag burning is the 
proper mode of flag disposal. If you look at the flag treatment 
protocol, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts burn flags all the time. So, if 
you punish someone for burning a flag, you are punishing them for a 
thought crime; you are not punishing them for an action which is done 
all the time in the United States.
  In any event, the Court says viewpoint discrimination is 
unacceptable. Nonetheless, Judge Bates said that Congressman Clay 
doesn't win. Why? It is because of where it took place. He said that 
the hallway in the Cannon House Office Building leading to the Capitol 
is not a public forum of any kind. It is not a traditional public forum 
like a street or park. It is not a limited public forum, something that 
is set up for the expression of speech, which is precisely what you 
would think it is. It is not even a nonpublic forum, Judge Bates says. 
Judge Bates says that the 440 paintings down there are government 
speech.
  Now, that doesn't make any sense. We have lots of people who are in 
the gallery tonight, and I assume you passed by these paintings on the 
way over. If you didn't, check them out.
  I challenge anybody in America to go down to the tunnel and look at 
the paintings and regard the magnificent diversity of views and 
perspectives embodied in this one painting, for example, and say that 
it is government speech. In fact, the reason it was censored is because 
it wasn't government speech.
  Yet, the court got it wrong. Now, I am not going to say really nasty 
things about him. I am not President of the

[[Page 6025]]

United States. I am not going to say that he is a nonjudge or a so-
called judger. I think that he made a serious mistake. I think the D.C. 
Circuit will reverse it. I think the U.S. Supreme Court would reverse 
it.
  You know what? It doesn't make any difference, because everyone who 
has the honor of serving in this Chamber takes an oath to the 
Constitution of the United States. We have got to uphold the First 
Amendment. That is a responsibility that we have got. And we can't just 
say, ``Oh, we will let a court deal with it.'' We have got to deal with 
the First Amendment.
  And it is very clear--the court said it itself--this was viewpoint 
discrimination. That is unacceptable. And we should say that, yes, the 
Constitution applies in the Congress of the United States. We don't 
hold ourselves exempt from it. We don't say, if we set up a forum for 
young artists to bring their paintings in, that we are speaking. That 
doesn't make any sense. They are the ones speaking.
  So where do we go from here?
  Well, we are appealing to Speaker Ryan and to our friends in the 
majority to back off of the regime of rightwing political correctness. 
Just like it was wrong for Berkeley to try to sensor Ann Coulter, as 
much as many of us abhor everything she says and stands for, it is 
equally wrong for the Republican majority here to sensor Mr. Pulphus 
for your subjective interpretation of what his painting means.
  One of the reasons why the Supreme Court has always said you can't 
sensor art is because art is polysemous. What does that mean? It means 
it is open to multiple possible significances. Who is to say what this 
painting means or what Guernica means?
  Guernica, by the way, would certainly be censored under the 
principles that are being advanced here because it is sensationalistic 
or it deals with contemporary controversy. I mean, what art doesn't 
deal with contemporary controversy? I mean, it just doesn't make any 
sense what they are saying.
  So I think that the majority should really rethink whether it wants 
to be in the business of censorship. This is not Russia. This is not 
Azerbaijan. This is not Saudi Arabia. This is not Iran. This is the 
United States of America.
  People have a right to paint the painting that they want. If you 
don't like the painting, you go to the next painting. You don't take it 
down, especially in the Congress of the United States where we should 
be setting an example. Justice Brandeis said government is the 
omnipresent teacher to the people of the constitutional values of the 
whole society.
  Now, we have got one other serious problem I want to mention before I 
go because, you see, before they engaged in this act of censorship 
against this young artist who was from St. Louis who was obviously 
upset about what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, and painted this 
painting which I think is actually a very interesting, captivating 
painting that reminds me of Picasso's Guernica and clearly evokes 
themes from George Orwell's ``Animal Farm,'' before they did that, you 
didn't have to agree with any particular painting or sculpture or 
artwork in the Capitol complex, right?
  We have great champions of freedom and justice in the Republic who 
are portrayed all over the Capitol complex, like Abraham Lincoln, for 
example, like Rosa Parks, like Martin Luther King, like Lyndon Johnson, 
like Sojourner Truth.
  You know what? We also have people who are traitors to the country, 
people who were Confederate conspirators against the United States, 
like John Breckinridge, a guy who served as a U.S. Senator and as Vice 
President of the United States and then defected from the Union, took 
up arms against the United States of America, and was declared a 
traitor and stripped of his titles as a former Vice President and a 
former Senator.
  There is Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. There is 
a statue of him up. Robert E. Lee, obviously the general for the 
Confederacy during the Civil War. There is John C. Calhoun, who 
defected from the Union and took up arms against us.
  So we have these portraits, statues, and busts of great Americans who 
stood for freedom, justice, and equality in America and the 
Constitution. And we have people who got themselves into trouble and, I 
think, brought disgrace to themselves with what they did. But they were 
all up together.
  Now that we are entering into a new area of authoritarian thought 
control and censorship and political correctness in Congress, how can 
we have a statue of John Breckinridge up in the Capitol complex? How 
can we have Jefferson Davis up in the Capitol complex?
  If this is government speech, now we are going to have to litigate 
each one of these artistic displays to see whether or not they are 
actually consistent with the values of the United States Congress and 
consistent with the values of the U.S. Constitution. Is that where we 
want to go?
  I invite my colleagues--I beseech my colleagues--don't take us there. 
Reverse this act of censorship against this young man. Don't set out to 
crush his spirit. Don't step on the First Amendment. Show America that 
we believe in the Constitution. Otherwise, we are going to be engaged 
in some very interesting discussions about the kinds of artwork that 
are found all over the Capitol campus.
  I just want to salute, again, Congressman Clay for bringing us 
together and all of my colleagues who have come forward to stand up for 
the First Amendment tonight.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Maryland who, as 
we heard, his 25 years of knowledge on the U.S. Constitution bodes well 
for this entire body, and I appreciate his friendship and his support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office watching this 
debate, and I really appreciate the opportunity to come down. I ran 
down the stairs because I wanted to speak to this issue.
  Now, it really doesn't matter what anybody in here thinks about what 
I think is a pretty amazing piece of art. Under the banner of artistic 
discovery--that is the competition that we have, artistic discovery--we 
are inviting young people, high school students, to express themselves, 
sometimes to find themselves in the artwork that they do, to clarify 
ideals for themselves and to challenge people. What is art about, if 
not that?
  So, in my office right now, we are putting together the artwork that 
has been submitted from the high schools in our district. We take very 
great pride in our artistic discovery contests, and so we are 
collecting that artwork.
  But as we looked at the instructions before we did it, we saw this 
new addition that just came up, first time. How long is this? Thirty-
two years we have been doing this? This is the first year that it 
includes suitability guidelines, and it makes very clear that subjects 
of contemporary political controversy are not allowed.
  Then we have to sign, each Member of Congress will be required to 
submit a letter of support for their work of art. This letter is to 
ensure that the Member has seen the artwork before it is submitted, has 
taken responsibility for the content, and has certified that the 
artwork, in the Member's opinion, adheres to the suitability 
guidelines.
  Now, of course it says: ``While it is not the intent to censor any 
artwork, we do wish to avoid artwork that is potentially inappropriate 
for display in this highly traveled area leading to the Capitol.''
  What the heck does that really mean? Does that mean that people are 
not--you know, we have to worry about is somebody going to take offense 
at something or say, ``Ooh, I don't like that picture''? They are 
entitled to do it, and the artist is entitled to put it out here.
  Now, it so happens that none of the pieces that were submitted, I 
think, were unsuitable, but who the heck knows anymore? Who makes the 
decision about what is unsuitable? I don't know.
  Some of the--if you look down the hall and look at some of them, some 
of

[[Page 6026]]

those self-portraits, I don't know, these kids look troubled to me. Is 
that something that ought to be taken down? No. Absolutely no.
  This young person lived through a traumatic incident in his community 
and I think, quite artistically, decided to express his feelings about 
it. I think it is absolutely an outrage. We already heard about the 
violation of the Constitution, but each and every American should be 
offended by that and about these suitable guidelines. I am sorry. I 
object. I hope you do too.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), my friend and dean of the Ohio delegation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Clay for organizing this 
Special Order, and the people of Ohio in my district stand with him and 
with the young artist I will discuss in a moment.
  The United States of America and this Capitol stand as a symbol of 
American values and our freedoms. It just so happens I represent a 
district that contains 2 of the 10 finest museums in America, at 
Cleveland and Toledo. We know a little bit about artistic expression.
  Here in the Capitol, we have created a place to gather and celebrate 
our Nation's highest ideals, and first and foremost among these is the 
right of every citizen to freely express themselves as equal citizens.
  A recent act of censorship here at the Capitol placed this American 
right under threat, and it is important that all Americans think about 
this and know about it. I speak to say this action cannot be tolerated. 
I stand with my distinguished colleagues and with the American people 
to speak out against the removal of David Pulphus' award-winning 
painting from the United States Capitol.
  There was a famous French artist named Edgar Degas, who said: ``Art 
is not what you see, but what you make others see.'' Surely, surely, 
David Pulphus' painting does this. And I support Mr. Pulphus' continued 
efforts to appeal a preliminary decision by the District of Columbia 
Federal Circuit Court that rejected his First Amendment legal claims, 
and that case will move forward.
  In May 2016, his extraordinary acrylic painting that reveals deep 
meaning, which he named Untitled #1, was awarded the prestigious honor 
to represent Missouri's First Congressional District in the 
Congressional Arts Competition.
  I have entered, for three decades, works from my district in this 
competition; and just like the other 434 pieces selected to represent a 
congressional district in the annual competition, Untitled #1 was 
approved and accepted by the Architect of the Capitol for public 
display inside our Capitol.
  For over 26 weeks, Untitled #1 hung in the underground tunnel between 
the Capitol and the Cannon House Office Building. For over 180 days 
there was no controversy. And for more than half a year, citizens and 
Members of Congress, congressional staff, thousands and thousands of 
international and national visitors passed by and viewed it with no 
concern.
  But that changed abruptly when, in fact, a Member from the Republican 
side of the aisle, I think, likely violated the law and pulled it off 
the wall in the Capitol of the United States. It didn't belong to him, 
but he did that. And, I dare say, that gentleman missed the deeper 
meaning of what this young man has portrayed.
  There was an added twist of irony in that the censorship moment 
occurred 1 day after our national holiday honoring civil rights icon 
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  The censorship sent a woeful and chilling message to our Nation and 
one that says that our young people's voices and their thoughts are not 
respected. I say that is un-American. Their views and experiences and 
perspectives must be valued.
  When we look at what was done, his freedom of expression, even when 
expressed through a juried competition, is not protected in the top 
site of liberty's essence, the legislative branch inside the United 
States Capitol Building.
  So Members of Congress have to take a stand. We must demand that the 
creative contributions of Americans, young and old, in the arts are 
embraced, including inside this Capitol. We cannot tolerate actions 
that directly and unjustly stifle or threaten an artist's artistic 
point of view. That is what America is all about.
  David Pulphus' painting won the honor to represent Missouri's First 
Congressional District because it reflects an important, compelling 
message. His work reminds us of the value of the arts in a free 
society.
  The painting was inspired by the civil unrest that occurred in 
Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, and it depicts the racial confrontation 
that ensued with police after that fatal shooting of the unarmed teen, 
Michael Brown, Jr.
  This is a complex work and it does not deserve anyone's rejection. It 
tells us about ourselves and our society so that we face it fully. And 
if you look at it, there are serious messages in here that say, ``Stop 
Killing,'' ``Racism Kills.'' It talks about ``History.''
  And if you really look at it, you see that some of those involved in 
the killing, there is no right side. One of the perpetrators is 
portrayed as a wolf. It is very interesting to study the deeper 
meaning. This painting includes challenging images: a man being 
crucified, wearing a graduation cap, holding the scales of justice.
  This is a young man, he is not even 20 years old, thinking about 
this.
  There is a horned beast in a police uniform tangling with a devil 
with a pointed tail--looks like a wolf--and demonstration signs that 
read ``History'' and ``Stop Killing.''
  Simply put, this commanding work of art from a teenager is a true 
testament to the power and immeasurable significance of our Nation's 
young artists who express us.
  The debate sparked by its removal from the Capitol is about something 
larger than the artwork itself. It is about defending our fundamental 
First Amendment freedom. This right to artistic expression is 
considered objectionable by a few and applauded by the vast majority of 
Americans who understand what free expression in this society is about.
  Neither the Architect of the Capitol nor a Member of Congress has the 
right to censor, self-censor citizens based on their political points 
of view, whether in the name of official decorum or because they find 
it offensive or because they fail to grasp its deep meaning.
  In America, if you do not like a painting you see in a display, you 
simply move on to the next one. You don't take it down. It doesn't 
belong to you.
  Nevertheless, as a painter myself and citizen who deeply reveres our 
constitutional rights, I am confident that in this case justice 
ultimately will prevail and Untitled #1 will soon resume its rightful 
place inside our Capitol because a young man with this depth of 
expression is proudly an American. If it doesn't come back, I fear for 
the slippery slope the Architect of the Capitol has begun, and it is 
not worthy of us as Americans.
  I want to thank Congressman Clay so very much for standing by this 
young American who is not even 18 years old yet, I don't think, and who 
managed to put this complex piece of art together. I am so proud of 
him; I am so proud of our country; and I just know that, working 
together, we are going to get it right for artistic expression here in 
the House of Representatives.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio. I certainly 
appreciate her support.
  In closing, let me say that the student artist in question, my 
constituent, David Pulphus, is a great young man. He is academically 
gifted, artistically talented, and is now a freshman in college. He is 
doing everything that we encourage young Americans to do to become 
successful citizens.
  His winning entry is a colorful, symbolic representation of the great 
anger, pain, frustration, and deep deficit in trust for local law 
enforcement that many young African Americans feel in their hearts. The 
painting also reflects generations of struggle, sacrifice,

[[Page 6027]]

abuse of power, and tenuous relationships between minorities and a 
system of justice that still provides equal justice for some, but not 
for all.

                              {time}  1700

  So the larger, much more fundamental question is: Why does this young 
American feel that way, and what can we do as leaders of a 
compassionate and just nation to finally remedy that?
  I am so thankful for the remarkable public service of my exceptional 
pro bono legal team who are guiding this case, including Dr. Laurence 
Tribe of Harvard University School of Law, Dr. Erwin Chemerinsky of the 
University of California, Irvine School of Law, and others. As a Member 
of Congress who reveres the Constitution, I am confident that freedom 
and justice will prevail.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Rep. Clay for 
hosting this important special order hour, and thank him for all his 
hard work on this very important issue over the past few months.
  As co-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I wanted to share my 
appreciation this evening for David Pulphus and his artwork ``Untitled 
#1'' which won the Congressional Art Competition in Missouri's 1st 
Congressional District, home to the city of St. Louis.
  David's painting is a wonderful piece of artwork, a contribution that 
we will not soon forget, and should still be hanging in the Capitol.
  As the great poet Langston Hughes once said ``An artist must be free 
to choose what he does, certainly, but he must also never be afraid to 
do what he might choose.''
  David's artwork strikes at the core of our nation. He bravely chose 
his subject and expressed it in a beautiful and moving painting and it 
is my hope that he continue to express himself and his artwork without 
fear.
  In February I sent David a letter expressing my apologies that his 
painting was unfairly taken down from the halls of the Capitol. It is 
my sincere hope that this experience does not deter him, or other 
aspiring young artists, from future endeavors in the arts.
  Thank you Rep. Clay for allowing me to speak tonight.

                          ____________________




 REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1694, FANNIE 
 AND FREDDIE OPEN RECORDS ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES; AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) 
   OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS 
                  REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Mr. WOODALL (during the Special Order of Mr. Clay), from the 
Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 115-96) on 
the resolution (H. Res. 280) providing for consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1694) to require additional entities to be subject to the 
requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and for other purposes; 
providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules; and 
waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
printed.

                          ____________________




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, President Trump recently signed an 
executive order that made abundant sense for those who are in the world 
of common sense where good sense is common, which at least is not the 
case in the Federal courthouse in San Francisco.
  Our friend, Andrew McCarthy, has written an op-ed for National Review 
regarding the decision of the oligarch masquerading in the Federal 
courthouse in San Francisco. Judge William H. Orrick III is amazing. In 
fact, his arrogance is only exceeded by his ignorance.
  It is an excellent article. Normally I wouldn't read an entire 
article, it is not that long, but this is so well written by the 
prosecutor of The Blind Sheikh that it bears hearing the words from 
Andrew McCarthy.
  He said: ``A showboating Federal judge in San Francisco has issued an 
injunction against President Trump's executive order cutting off 
Federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities. The ruling distorts the 
E.O. beyond recognition, accusing the President of usurping legislative 
authority despite the order's express adherence to `existing law.' 
Moreover, undeterred by the inconvenience that the order has not been 
enforced, the activist court--better to say, the fantasist court--
dreams up harms that might befall San Francisco and Santa Clara, the 
sanctuary jurisdictions behind the suit, if it were enforced. The court 
thus flouts the standing doctrine, which limits judicial authority to 
actual controversies involving concrete, nonspeculative harms.
  ``Although he vents for 49 pages, Judge William H. Orrick III gives 
away the game early, on page 4. There, the Obama appointee explains 
that his ruling is about . . . nothing.
  ``That is, Orrick acknowledges that he is adopting the construction 
of the E.O. urged by the Trump Justice Department, which maintains that 
the order does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already 
existing law. Although that construction is completely consistent with 
the E.O. as written, Judge Orrick implausibly describes it as 
`implausible.'''
  I would interject at this point, Mr. Speaker, that upon hearing 
President Trump's executive order requiring sanctuary cities such as 
San Francisco, where their heart is so calloused on the side 
figuratively facing people like Kate Steinle, innocent people who are 
just trying to live freely their own lives, and is greatly softened on 
the side of those criminals who have come into the United States 
illegally who would tend to shoot lovely, law-abiding daughters like 
Kate.
  So it seemed eminently reasonable what I had read was in the order. I 
didn't read the whole order originally, but it made eminent sense, of 
course, the President of the United States saying that he is authorized 
by the Constitution in carrying out enforcement and by Congress in 
carrying out enforcement, saying we are not sending Federal money to 
sanctuary cities--to any cities--that are refusing to use the money for 
the purpose for which it is intended. That makes eminent sense, because 
if you are not going to follow Federal law, if it is made clear to the 
whole world that you would rather see people like Kate Steinle shot and 
killed dead so that you can have criminals committing the worst kinds 
of violence on law-abiding citizens. That makes sense to these people 
who are ruling in San Francisco. One ruler is Judge Orrick who we 
reference here.
  There was a time in America when people in power thought it was a 
good idea for everyone to follow the law. But we have devolved in some 
areas of the country where we are no longer a nation of laws, where at 
least at one time there was a goal of pursuing absolute fairness where 
everyone could live under the same laws following the same laws. There 
was that time.
  Yet we have people who are educated far beyond their mental ability 
to absorb education since it has used up all the gigabytes that might 
have otherwise been used for wisdom for cluttered knowledge that has 
prevented this judge and others from being able to use common sense to 
follow the law to protect people who are counting on the courts and law 
enforcement officers to follow and enforce the law themselves.
  There was that time when Manifest Destiny was being pursued, people 
were moving West. The areas West were not actual States within the 
United States. There was a lawlessness. People were yearning in those 
territories to be States so that they could count on the Federal 
Government to provide fairness--ultimate fairness--and provide a life 
that would be lived under the United States Constitution. They felt, in 
those days, if we could just get the

[[Page 6028]]

Federal Government to have a Federal marshal here and a Federal Court 
here, wow, life would be so much better. Now we have seen it has lived 
beyond the usefulness it once had and has become quite a burden to 
overcome in reaching fairness and constitutionality.
  So, Mr. Speaker, before I continue with Andy McCarthy's piece, I want 
to point out we are in preparation of a bill that would eliminate any 
Federal district court or circuit court from having jurisdiction over 
matters regarding immigration. Certainly, we had that power. In fact, 
we have the power to eliminate the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
altogether. We have a bill that would, in fact, limit the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals to California, and all of the other States that 
comprise the Ninth Circuit would be part of a new 12th Circuit. In that 
new 12th Circuit, whoever the current President is when the law is 
passed would appoint the entire banc of judges for the 12th Circuit 
Court of Appeals.
  Following the Reid rule in the Senate, if we were to get that passed 
through the House and Senate, I feel sure President Trump would sign it 
into law, and then President Trump would have an entire circuit where 
he appoints the judges, where people would know they would have judges 
of the quality of Judge Gorsuch--at least the quality he is supposed to 
represent--and people would know they weren't going to get oligarchs as 
judges, they were going to get people who at least maintain some 
semblance of trying to follow the Constitution and trying to live up to 
the oath that they took to defend the Constitution--just support the 
Constitution for goodness' sake.
  McCarthy goes on. He says: ``Since Orrick ultimately agrees with the 
Trump Justice Department, and since no enforcement action has been 
taken based on the E.O., why not just dismiss the case? Why the 
judicial theatrics?
  ``There appear to be two reasons.
  ``The first is Orrick's patent desire to embarrass the White House, 
which rolled out the E.O. with great fanfare. The court wants it 
understood that Trump is a pretender: For all the hullaballoo, the E.O. 
effectively did nothing. Indeed, Orrick rationalizes his repeated 
misreadings of what the order actually says by feigning disbelief that 
what it says could possibly be what it means. Were that the case, he 
suggests, there would have been no reason to issue the order in the 
first place.
  ``Thus, taking a page from the activist leftwing judges who 
invalidated Trump's `travel ban' orders, Orrick harps on stump speeches 
by Trump and other administration officials. One wonders how well 
Barack `If you like your plan, you can keep your plan' Obama would have 
fared under the judiciary's new Trump doctrine: The extravagant 
political rhetoric by which the incumbent President customarily sells 
his policies relieves a court of the obligation to grapple with the 
inevitably more modest legal text of the directives that follow.
  ``Of course, the peer branches of government are supposed to presume 
each other's good faith in the absence of a patent violation of the 
law. But let's put aside the unseemliness of Orrick's barely concealed 
contempt for a moment, because he is also wrong. The proper purpose of 
an executive order is to direct the operations of the executive branch 
within the proper bounds of the law. There is, therefore, nothing 
untoward about an E.O. that directs the President's subordinates to 
take enforcement action within the confines of congressional statutes. 
In fact, it is welcome.
  ``It is the President's burden to set Federal law enforcement 
priorities. After years of Obama's lax enforcement of immigration law 
and apathy regarding sanctuary jurisdictions, an E.O. openly 
manifesting an intent to execute the laws vigorously can have a 
salutary effect. And indeed, indications are that the cumulative effect 
of Trump's more zealous approach to enforcement, of which the 
sanctuary-city E.O. is just one component, has been a significant 
reduction in the number of aliens seeking to enter the U.S. 
illegally.''

                              {time}  1715

  ``In any event, 8 years of Obama's phone and pen have made it easy to 
forget that the President is not supposed to make the law, and thus 
that we should celebrate, not condemn, an E.O. that does not break new 
legal ground. Orrick, by contrast, proceeds from the flawed premise 
that if a President is issuing an E.O., it simply must be his purpose 
to usurp congressional authority. Then he censures Trump for a 
purported usurpation that is nothing more than a figment of his own 
very active imagination.''
  He is talking about the judge here. What an imagination.
  ``Orrick's second reason for issuing his Ruling About Nothing is to 
rationalize what is essentially an advisory opinion. It holds--I know 
you'll be shocked to hear this--that if Trump ever did try to cut off 
funds from sanctuary cities, it would be an epic violation of the 
Constitution. Given that courts are supposed to refrain from issuing 
advisory opinions, the Constitution is actually more aggrieved by 
Orrick than by Trump.
  ``In a nutshell, the court claims that the E.O. is Presidential 
legislation, an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. 
Orrick insists that the E.O. directs the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security to cut off any Federal funds that would 
otherwise go to States and municipalities if they `willfully refuse to 
comply' with Federal law that calls for State and local cooperation in 
enforcing immigration law.
  ``According to Judge Orrick, Trump's E.O. is heedless of whether 
Congress has approved any terminations of State funding from Federal 
programs it has enacted. In one of the opinion's most disingenuous 
passages, Orrick asserts that the E.O. `directs the Attorney General 
and the Homeland Security Secretary to ensure that ``sanctuary 
jurisdictions'' are ``not eligible to receive'' Federal grants.'
  ``But this is just not true.''
  In other words, Judge Orrick lied in his opinion.
  ``Orrick has omitted key context from the relevant passage, which 
actually states that `the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their 
discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that 
jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 are 
not eligible to receive Federal grants.'
  ``In plain English, the President has expressly restricted his 
subordinates to the limits that Congress has enacted. Under Trump's 
order, there can be no suspension or denial of funding from a Federal 
program unless congressional statutes authorize it. The President is 
not engaged in an Obama-esque rewrite of Federal law; he explicitly 
ordered his subordinates to follow Federal law.
  ``It is not enough to say Orrick mulishly ignores the clear text of 
the executive order. Again and again, Justice Department lawyers 
emphasized to the court that Trump's order explicitly reaffirmed 
existing law. Orrick refused to listen because, well, what fun would 
that be? If the President is simply directing that the law be followed, 
there is no basis for a progressive judge''--like Orrick--``to accuse 
him of violating the law. Were he to concede that, how would Orrick 
then win this month's Social Justice Warrior in a Robe Award for 
Telling Donald Trump What for?
  ``Orrick can't confine himself to merely inventing a violation, 
either, because there is no basis for a lawsuit unless a violation 
results in real damages. So, the judge also has to fabricate some harm. 
This takes some doing since, in addition to merely directing that the 
law be enforced, the Trump administration has not actually taken any 
action against any sanctuary jurisdiction to this point.
  ``No problem: Orrick theorizes that because San Francisco and Santa 
Clara receive lots of government funding, Trump's order afflicts them 
with `pre-enforcement' anxiety. They quake in fear that their safety-
net and service budgets will be slashed.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would inject that it appears that Judge Orrick and 
leaders in San Francisco must be deeply in need of a safe space where 
they can go sit in the dark, suck their thumbs, hold

[[Page 6029]]

their blankets, and feel comforted somehow because of the illusions 
that they have generated of all these bugaboos that are threatening in 
their wild imaginations.
  Mr. McCarthy goes on:
  ``Sanctuary cities? Maybe we should call them snowflake cities.
  ``As noted above, there is a transparent agenda behind Orrick's 
sleight of hand. The judge is keen to warn the President that, if ever 
his administration were to deny funds to sanctuary cities, it would 
violate the Constitution. It is in connection with this advisory 
opinion that the judge makes the only point worthy of consideration--
albeit not in the case before him.
  ``Here, it is useful to recall the Supreme Court's first ObamaCare 
ruling. While conservatives inveighed against Chief Justice Roberts' 
upholding of the individual mandate, the decision had a silver lining: 
The majority invalidated ObamaCare's Medicaid mandate, which required 
the States, as a condition of qualifying for Federal Medicaid funding, 
to enforce the Federal Government's generous new Medicaid 
qualifications.
  ``In our system, the States are sovereign--the Federal Government may 
not dictate to them in areas of traditional State regulation, nor may 
it conscript them to enforce Federal law. The Supremes, therefore, 
explained that State agreements to accept Federal funding in return for 
adopting Federal standards, e.g., to accept highway funding in exchange 
for adopting the Federally prescribed 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, are 
like contracts. The State must agree to the Federal Government's terms. 
Once such an agreement is reached, the Feds may not unilaterally make 
material changes in the terms, nor may they use their superior 
bargaining position to extort a State into acceding to onerous new 
terms in order to get the Federal money on which it has come to depend. 
Whether a particular case involves such an extortion, as opposed to a 
permissible nudge, depends on the facts. If the Feds are too heavy-
handed, they run the risk of violating the 10th Amendment's Federalist 
division of powers.
  ``Who knew Federal judges in ur-statist San Francisco had become such 
Federalists?
  ``Orrick contends that if Trump were to cut off funds from sanctuary 
cities for failure to assist Federal immigration-enforcing officials, 
it would offend the 10th Amendment. This is highly unlikely. First, 
let's remember--though Orrick studiously forgets--that Trump's order 
endorses only such stripping of funds as Congress has already approved. 
Thus, sanctuary jurisdictions would be ill-suited to claim that they'd 
been sandbagged. Second, the money likely to be at issue would surely 
be nothing close to Medicaid funding. Finally, Trump would not be 
unilaterally rewriting an existing Federal-State contract; he'd be 
calling for the States to follow Federal laws that, A, were on the 
books when the States started taking Federal money and, B, pertain to 
immigration, a legal realm in which the courts have held the Federal 
Government is supreme and the States subordinate.
  ``Still, all that said, whether any Trump-administration effort to 
cut off funding would run afoul of the 10th Amendment would depend on 
such considerations as how much funding was actually cut; whether 
Congress had authorized the cut in designing the funding program; 
whether the funding was tightly related or unrelated to immigration 
enforcement; and how big a burden it would be for States to comply with 
Federal demands. Those matters will be impossible to evaluate unless 
and until the administration actually directs a slashing of funds to a 
sanctuary jurisdiction.
  ``If that happens, there will almost certainly be no legal infirmity 
as long as Trump's E.O. means what it says--namely, that any funding 
cuts must be consistent with existing Federal law. But it hasn't 
happened.''
  And for our poor, miseducated Judge Orrick sitting on the bench with 
his head crammed full of mush, but none of it entangled with the U.S. 
Constitution, he fails to understand that Federal courts are not 
allowed to issue advisory opinions. There is no standing. There is no 
jurisdiction of the court. But don't let the Constitution nor Federal 
law get in the way of Judge Orrick's ego.
  McCarthy points out:
  ``If that happens . . . any funding cuts must be consistent with 
Federal law. But it hasn't happened. And as long as it hasn't happened, 
there is no basis for a court to involve itself, much less issue an 
anticipatory ruling.
  ``Such niceties only matter if you are practicing law, though. Judge 
Orrick is practicing politics.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of judge that really should be 
removed from office. He is allowed to sit as long as he exhibits good 
conduct, but this is not the conduct that is good, when he takes an 
oath to be judicious, follow the law, and defend the Constitution. It 
is certainly unbecoming to a judge.
  Yes, here in Congress we debate and go back and forth. Before the 
courts, lawyers go back and forth. But the judge is supposed to be 
judicious and follow the law.
  It is time for us to take away all authority of any Federal district 
court, any Federal magistrate, any Federal judge of any kind other than 
the Supreme Court when it comes to issues such as this.
  We have created immigration courts, but when it comes to appeals and 
to lawsuits filed regarding immigration and naturalization, I think, 
Mr. Speaker, we should restrict that to the one and only Federal court 
that, as Professor Gwen used to say in constitutional law at Baylor, 
only one court in the United States Federal system that owes its 
existence to the Constitution.

                              {time}  1730

  All other Federal courts of any kind owe their existence and their 
jurisdiction to the United States Congress. So the Congress giveth when 
it comes to courts, and the Congress can taketh away. It is time to 
start removing authority from some of these courts that Congress has 
created that have now created more problems than they have solved.
  An article here by Stephen Dinan and Andrea Noble in The Washington 
Times basically says what so many of the news media did that a Federal 
judge, Judge Orrick, says Trump is wrong to tie Federal funding to 
sanctuary status and blocks the executive order. But really it turns 
out, when you get the actual order and you find out what really 
happened, there was no such order because there was no violation. There 
was no harm. The plaintiffs had no standing. The court had no 
jurisdiction. This is a zero in the effect in this country other than 
the politics that this Federal judge was playing.
  Unfortunately, when a Federal judge acquires a lifetime appointment 
and he starts running for an office he already holds when there is no 
opponent, he is acting outside the realm of the Constitution, and we 
really should have debates over what good conduct means. It doesn't 
matter whether or not a judge voted Republican, Socialist, Libertarian, 
it doesn't matter. If he or she is not acting within the confines of 
their oath, they need to be removed from the bench.
  I do hope, Mr. Speaker, we will take up--I know my friend Darrell 
Issa and others have filed bills about the Ninth Circuit Court that has 
more cases filed in it because lawyers know it is more likely to gut 
the U.S. Constitution and ignore the Constitution, so anybody who has a 
claim that is not particularly meritorious under the Constitution, as 
written, wants to be in the Ninth Circuit because there they have got a 
shot that the oligarchs out there will do what a judge basically is 
quoted as saying before, that, gee, we know we don't follow the 
Constitution or we don't care about precedent, don't care what the 
Supreme Court says, but that is why we come out with so many decisions. 
We know the Supreme Court can't reverse them all.
  That is a court that really ought to be disbanded. When you have a 
court that is ignoring their oath, ignoring the Constitution, it is 
just really time to get rid of it.
  We have a report, too, Mr. Speaker, after the great work of the two 
main

[[Page 6030]]

leaders--and I do mean that in every good sense of the term 
``leaders''--Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan, especially Mark Meadows, 
working in the last couple weeks, working to try to have a solution 
even though, apparently, according to one of my colleagues who is not a 
part of the Freedom Caucus, he was hoping that we would stay here until 
we got an agreement on a healthcare bill but was told, no, we want the 
Freedom Caucus to go home and let their constituents yell at them, and 
then they will be ready to sign or vote for whatever we put in front of 
them.
  Actually, most of us, it sounds like from our discussions, have been 
reaffirmed and encouraged by our constituents. In my case, it certainly 
felt like, as I traveled throughout east Texas, apparently not being at 
the places where the Democrats who call themselves Indivisible were 
appearing, but going to veterans' groups, chambers of commerce, 
banquets, meeting with many constituents, but hearing about three-
fourths of the time, which was my percentage, basically, with which I 
won the last general election, people are saying: Hang in there. Don't 
give up.
  So with the encouragement of constituents that most of us in the 
Freedom Caucus have had, we came back still willing to negotiate, still 
trying to work. Mark Meadows has done some good work.
  I still have trouble understanding why we didn't just go ahead and 
bring to the floor, bring out of committee--it has been through 
committee before--the bill 2 years ago. I mean, it had hearings, passed 
out of the House and Senate. It repealed most of ObamaCare, not all of 
it, but more than the current bill being taken up in this Congress. Why 
not just bring that to the floor? Then we pass that, and we could take 
other steps. One that is absolutely critical--and I do applaud Speaker 
Ryan for bringing it to the floor. It was a very critical step in 
getting competition in health insurance, not to be confused with health 
care.
  For too long, going back to 1993 when Hillary Rodham Clinton was 
talking about everybody deserves health care, she was using ``health 
care'' and ``health insurance'' as if they were synonymous. Those terms 
are not synonymous. People can get health care without health 
insurance. I know because, after ObamaCare was passed, Congress was 
mandated to have ObamaCare, and then President Obama, Harry Reid, and 
John Boehner, as Speaker--come to think of it, all three people who are 
no longer in positions of power--came together, and they agreed to act 
as if the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, did not say that Members of 
Congress could no longer receive the subsidy that every Federal 
employee in America gets to help pay for healthcare insurance. So they 
just ignored the law, made very clear. Even though every other Federal 
employee gets that assistance--and with my wife and me paying off kids' 
student loans, because if I had never run for elected office, they had 
money set aside, that we had set aside, would have paid for every year 
of their college. We didn't think that they should have to have big 
student loan debt because their father felt the calling to be a public 
servant. So we are paying off student loans, and this will be the first 
year that I will be able to file a financial disclosure that doesn't 
have student loan debt listed because when it falls below $10,000, you 
don't have to list it. So we have made progress.
  But because of that, we were not in a position to pay the massive 
amount that the insurance was going to cost, so I went without 
insurance up here in Congress. I know what it is to have health care 
and not have health insurance. I still don't have government-funded or 
healthcare insurance here. I have insurance now, but it is not through 
the Federal Government. So I understand the difference between 
insurance and health care.
  I look forward to the day when we keep blurring that line because, 
when the line is totally blurred, then Americans are more easily duped 
into allowing the Federal Government to turn the best health care in 
the world's history into VA-styled problems of treating people. Most of 
us don't want that. Most Americans don't want that. They didn't want it 
in 2010. They don't want it now.
  But the bill Speaker Ryan brought to the floor had over 400 votes, 
and it is an important bill. We are going to bring down the costs, have 
real competition in health care and in health insurance; and what that 
bill did was eliminate the exemption from antitrust laws that health 
insurance companies have had since the McCarran-Ferguson bill passed in 
1945. Although people have talked more about buying insurance across 
State lines, the fact is, if we don't end the exemption from antitrust 
laws of health insurance companies and we do allow people to buy their 
insurance across State lines, then instead of having 30 to 50 
monopolies as we may have now in the health insurance business, we will 
end up with one monopoly in the whole country; because, if you don't 
have to follow antitrust laws, if you don't have to avoid taking 
actions to create monopolies and to force others out of business using 
antitrust tactics, then you can become the monopoly, and you will 
become the monopoly.
  If it is legal for an insurance company that is the biggest insurance 
company in a town, State, or country to go to a hospital or go to a 
healthcare network and say, you know, we have got most all of the 
health insurance business in the country and we want to put you in our 
network, but you are going to have to agree to let us pay you a 
fraction of what you normally would get, and if you ever allow any of 
these new entrepreneurial health insurance companies to have you in 
their network, then we will cut you out of our network.
  Well, hospitals, networks in their right minds would say, we can't 
turn these people down, we will go out of business because they are the 
big company. If we are not in their network, then we will go out of 
business. But, unfortunately, that would also mean all these other 
brilliant entrepreneurial-type insurance ideas, whether it is Medi-
Share, Christians coming together and sharing expenses, whatever it is, 
the big monopoly health insurance company can run them out of business, 
and that needs to be prevented.
  I applaud the Republican leadership for bringing that bill to the 
floor. I applaud the leadership, people like Paul Gosar, Dr. Gosar, and 
Austin Scott. They have done a good job, and I would like to think I 
have been pretty vocal on that issue as well. We had a vote on that, 
and over 400 people voted to end the exemption from antitrust laws of 
health insurance companies.
  I know good and well, if the Senate brings that same bill to the 
Senate floor, it will also have a huge--I don't know if it would be 
unanimous, but it would certainly be a huge victory. It would certainly 
be bipartisan to pass it. I think that is the kind of thing Americans 
are wanting to see.
  But as I talk to people around east Texas, most people have never 
heard of that because the newspapers around east Texas are more 
interested usually in talking about this Democratic group that calls 
itself Indivisible, as if everybody doesn't know that they are 
basically Democrats.

                              {time}  1745

  I think a meeting that called itself a townhall over in Longview got 
all kinds of good press. It was sponsored, as I understand it, by 
Democratic Women of Gregg County and Stonewall, a Democratic group. It 
wasn't a local group, the Stonewall group. Anyway, I would be busy 
around the rest of the district at Chamber banquets, meetings, and 
things like that.
  But it has been refreshing to talk to real Americans, people that are 
just trying to make a living, people that are just trying to pay their 
bills. I know some people talk in bold terms about how we are on 
vacation. But it is fantastic when Members of Congress go home and hear 
from their constituents. And I do. I hear those, Mr. Speaker, that are 
part of the 26 percent that want to keep ObamaCare. But I sure have my 
heart set on keeping our promises.

[[Page 6031]]

  In my district, the 74 percent said: ``We need ObamaCare repealed. We 
need the Federal Government to get out of our private lives. We need 
better jobs. We need the economy going much stronger.''
  I am excited about President Trump's proposal that he rolled out 
today. Having talked to my friend Kevin Brady, a good friend from 
Texas, the plan they are rolling out, I have come to have very grave 
concerns about the border adjustment tax.
  But if we do as President Trump proposed, bring our corporate tax 
down to 15 percent, as the President proposed today, manufacturing jobs 
will come rushing back to America. They will.
  I know there are the pseudointellectual elites that like to tell 
themselves that we have evolved somehow into this service society where 
we don't denigrate ourselves to the point that a lot of us have been 
throughout our lives, and so no problem, and that is doing hard labor, 
producing products, and manufacturing. It is a good thing.
  America needs manufacturing jobs back. It is a good thing to have a 
job. I know there are those that are quite cynical, those who are 
atheist, agnostic, and other religions. But for those who believe the 
teaching in the Bible, when God created the world and there was a 
Garden of Eden, everything was perfect. And even in a perfect Garden of 
Eden, God felt like it was good for people to have a job. So he gave 
Adam and Eve a job. He said: Your job is tending the garden. And in 
some form or other, Mr. Speaker, that is the job we have--tending the 
magnificent garden.
  We can use the resources, we can continue to make the world better--
cleaner air and cleaner water. Nobody wants dirty water and dirty air. 
And it is continuing to be clean in Texas, whether there were a Federal 
EPA or not. Our agencies in Texas are doing a good job.
  Our Federal Government needs to allow the brilliance, the 
creativeness, and the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans to bloom. If 
we drop the largest tariff that any nation in the industrialized world 
places on its own products, if we get rid of that, or at least drop 
that down to 15 percent, manufacturing jobs will return to America and 
our economy will explode for the better.
  Some of these young people that have come out of school--high school, 
college, graduate studies--so many have no idea what it is to have 
countering offers for their employment. They don't know. They had to 
move home and live at home for awhile. But it is exciting when you are 
wanted by more than one employer, and money is offered, and it is good 
money. It makes you feel good about yourself. Mr. Speaker, I am ready, 
like most Americans, to see that happening in America again so our 
young people can have that feeling of self-worth because there are so 
many jobs.
  One of the first steps was to repeal ObamaCare and allow health care 
that would be affordable--insurance that would be affordable. Well, the 
bill we are taking up is not going to do that. But I have advised the 
House leadership, Republican leadership, and the President and Vice 
President that I will vote for the bill in its current form. It is not 
what I wanted.
  It is not a full repeal, but it does enough now that it will bring 
down premiums. And it won't be 10 years under the law the way it is 
written right now.
  It protects those who have preexisting conditions.
  It allows people 26 years of age and younger--I wouldn't mind it 
being 50, but it is 26--be on their parents' insurance as dependents. 
That is not being touched. That is there.
  But some of the mandates are being repealed the way it sits now. I am 
not thrilled with it. But I have talked to enough people that have just 
got to have help on the premiums. The bill, the way it was, was not 
going to help them. We have got the bill to a point where it will help 
much more quickly with premium assistance.
  I am looking forward to getting that behind us, moving on to dropping 
the corporate tax rate to 15 percent so we can return manufacturing 
jobs in droves, and seeing this economy explode.
  There is reason to be optimistic. Not everybody is as mindless as 
Judge Orrick, so there is reason for optimism.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Louisiana). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, let me just note that today I am paying 
close attention to the healthcare issue. I don't want anybody to think 
when they look at me giving this speech on the floor of the House that 
this is evidence that there is arm-twisting going on here in the 
Capitol about trying to get people's vote on the healthcare issue. No, 
it is just humorous.
  This is a shoulder replacement. I had this one replaced, actually, 4 
or 5 months ago, and it is doing fine now. This one was a week ago. The 
cause of this, of course, has been excessive surfing. When I was older, 
I should have understood that you cannot surf as much as you can when 
you are younger without eliminating the cartilage that is there, then 
the cartilage is gone, and the bones grind on each other.
  Well, that is just one example, however, of a healthcare issue that 
is going to be with us much more frequently now as the population of 
this country is growing older. The older people get, there will be 
other infirmities that really were not suffered on such a scale when we 
died off at a younger age.
  So what we need to do is to make sure that we set down policies and a 
system that will provide the American people with the greatest and the 
most effective care that is possible within the budget that we have to 
deal with.
  Today I thought I would talk about that, of course--health care. But 
there are a few other issues I would like to discuss.
  Tax reform, of course, is something that is being focused on today as 
well--tax reform for fiscal year `17. And, of course, fiscal year `18, 
the appropriations bill. Border security, of course, has to be on this 
list.
  These are issues that we are every day talking about here on Capitol 
Hill. The work is intense, people are serious, and there is a job for 
us to do. President Trump is in the White House, and he is working hard 
as well.
  This is not the time for the other side to be politicizing every 
issue that comes up, but, instead, to admit that Republicans now have 
legitimately won the election for President and legitimately won a 
majority in both Houses of Congress.
  Thus, we should put in place policies that are, yes, fair, honest, 
and effective. But, also, we have to realize that it is fair, honest, 
and effective based on what those people who are elected by the people 
to make the decision believe is fair and effective.
  Unfortunately, what we have now, and we see this across the country, 
are people who--and I don't even know if they understand the system at 
all, but they are arrogantly trying to be engaged with disrupting the 
system because they did not win. That cannot be tolerated for long. I 
would hope that people have a change of heart and work with us. We are 
willing to work with Members of the other party, the Democratic Party, 
to make sure we come up with both health care and tax reform that the 
American people will accept and applaud.
  First, let's take a look at health care. Tonight I would like to 
discuss with whoever is listening and whoever is reading the 
Congressional Record an idea that I am proposing for the healthcare 
industry. And for the bill that is being put together, as we speak, 
where people are negotiating and compromising out, I have thrown this 
idea into the mix. And that is that we are--and we have to recognize--
making progress toward replacement of ObamaCare.
  I am asking my colleagues to give serious consideration to this 
simple

[[Page 6032]]

amendment that I believe will revolutionize health care in America by 
protecting the formation and operation of healthcare cooperatives.
  Now, let's get back to that. I am trying to suggest that a small 
change could actually bring about a revolution in the way health care 
is delivered to the American people today.
  Let's first admit that our healthcare system today seems to be run by 
the insurance companies. Yes, insurance companies have almost more 
influence than doctors do on the policies that we have on health 
insurance. That is not something that we need to put up with much 
longer if there is an alternative.
  What that should mean to Americans is that we need to open up the 
system of health care. We need to make sure that health care is being 
looked at as a target for a multiapproach that will come to grips with 
those challenges, both financial and technical, et cetera, and that we 
need to open it up, rather than just having such a major influence by 
those people who are the money changers--the insurance companies.

                              {time}  1800

  My amendment which I am proposing would go a long way towards opening 
up a whole new avenue. Now, when I say free enterprise--and I believe 
in free enterprise. When I say free enterprise, I don't just mean--and 
this is where, unfortunately, a lot of people have made a mistake in 
thinking that free enterprise approaches are simply the approaches that 
are based on greed and are based on profit motive. And instead of other 
things and motivations that are available, they believe that that is 
what free enterprise means, whether it is health care or whatever.
  Well, I would submit that free enterprise means a lot more than just 
depending on the profit motive and competition and greed but instead, 
also, includes, and should include--but we have excluded this avenue--
cooperation; cooperation among free people for their own benefit and 
the benefit of their families. We need it not only just in health care, 
but that is what we are discussing today, to make sure that Americans 
can cooperate together for their own benefits and the benefits of their 
family.
  Now, how do I get this? How do I get this consciousness? My mom and 
dad were both born on very small farms in North Dakota. In North Dakota 
where we have homesteaders and others who are relatively poor, in North 
Dakota, the farmers may have been given the land--by a Republican 
President, I might add. Abraham Lincoln is the one who initiated the 
Homestead Act.
  But they didn't have the money for the equipment, maybe even the 
money to buy seed. And what they did is, they formed farmers' 
collectives. What they called them, farmers' cooperatives. In Russia, 
they might have called them collectives, but they had the iron hand of 
evil in Russia, the iron hand of despotism, and a political control. 
But the cooperation in the United States was based on people gathering 
together, voluntarily working together to create a better situation. 
And you had cooperatives that would buy--farm cooperatives that would 
buy the machinery that was necessary for a small farm to succeed.
  Well, that worked. I noticed that when I would go up to work on the 
farm when I was younger, and I noticed these farm cooperatives around. 
And that is totally consistent with free enterprise, the cooperation 
among people to share with each other the burden of buying that type of 
equipment.
  Well, the amendment that I am proposing, in terms of our health care, 
falls right into that category. The amendment I am proposing stipulates 
that no provision in current law, or the underlying act, which we are 
amending, may restrict cooperative arrangements between individuals or 
organizations to jointly cover healthcare related expenses. The 
provision would further stipulate that such cooperative arrangements 
shall not be subject to any of the requirements, bureaucratic rules and 
regulations, that currently apply to healthcare industry companies.
  In addition, my amendment would stipulate that participation in such 
a cooperative arrangement shall be deemed as the equivalent of being 
covered by health insurance. If I might describe what I am talking 
about so people will understand. We are talking about now, the reason 
why a lot of people won't buy health insurance is that if they put it 
in, and they are healthy, that insurance money then goes to the 
insurance company, even though they have not used it at all.
  And so you are going to be hesitant to give that money and to buy 
that insurance, and the insurance companies, of course, are very happy 
to have that money available to speculate on the stock market, et 
cetera, in order to make a profit. I am not against profit, but I want 
to make sure that profit and greed are not the driving forces for what 
most people would hope for is they can cooperate together and not be 
subject to someone else's greed and profit motive.
  So what I am talking about, if this would be put into the healthcare 
bill, this small provision that I just read to you, making sure that 
cooperative efforts are covered and are not going to be controlled by 
the Federal Government, that they are free to do so without the many 
restrictions that would be on another company providing health 
insurance, that these cooperative efforts could--for example, you could 
have a co-op among people who worked at a certain school, or an 
industry, or you could have the same as we have now.
  I think that the pathway has been certainly explored when it comes to 
credit unions where, again, people in a nonprofit situation are working 
together in order to establish something that benefits all of those 
people.
  We could have a cooperative effort for health care, even run by some 
of the credit unions if they wanted to do so. They could have an app on 
their telephone or something where people would then put their money 
forward. If they didn't get sick, that money would still be part of 
what they have as their pot of money, their account with whoever it is. 
It is either an account or whatever, but the account will be returned. 
Thus, people will then take money out of the account to handle their 
own small medical needs, but they will also know that if they have a 
catastrophic condition--that is why everybody is banding together in 
this cooperative program--that they will be taken care of in terms of 
some catastrophic illness that might become them.
  So what we have in this proposal is an alternative, a very simple 
change in our healthcare law, which will permit people to work together 
and make it profitable for them to do so and take them away from the 
control of other corporations in the health insurance industry that may 
be thinking more profit than of what their interests are.
  So with that said, I have asked my colleagues to consider that 
proposal, and those who are reading this tonight or tomorrow in the 
Congressional Record, I hope they would call their Congressman to say 
that they are really interested in seeing that the cooperative 
alternative to health care is permitted in the bill.
  Now, the second piece of legislation that I would like to talk about 
tonight also deals with a vitally important issue, vitally important to 
the well-being of the American people, and that is border security. Let 
me just say, I have been aware that a massive influx of illegals into 
our country was a threat to the well-being of the American people, and 
I have known that in the almost 28 years that I have been a Member of 
Congress.
  But it has been discouraging to me that we have, over and over again, 
made attempts to try to do something that would draw the line and say 
we are not going to have any more illegals coming into our country. 
Now, by the way, that is illegals. I didn't say immigration, 
immigrants. I am talking about people coming here illegally, a massive 
flow of illegal immigration.
  In fact, the United States permits 1 million legal immigrants to come 
into our country every year. How big is that? That happens to be more 
than all of the other countries of the world combined. And we are 
supposed to

[[Page 6033]]

apologize about having that kind of an open system? But no, we have 
been attacked, over and over again, for trying to get control of this. 
And what happens when you get out-of-control illegal immigration? You 
get jobs for ordinary Americans; the value of their work is bid down. 
And if you want to know why some people can't get good jobs today, and 
those jobs actually paid a lot more in the past, is because we have 
flooded the market.
  Basically, the Democratic Party has been deeply involved with 
opposing any of the efforts, and many Republicans have opposed the 
effort to get control of this flow of illegals. Why? Well, I guess we 
might be able to take a look at some motives and say: there are a lot 
of Republicans who could have done something on this, but they didn't 
want to stem the flow of illegal immigrants because Big Business 
wants--what do they want? Cheap labor.
  That is a betrayal of the American people, just as much as it is a 
betrayal of the American people for the other party to try to keep the 
flow of illegal immigrants into our country, hoping they will give them 
a victory at the ballot box and, thus, give them political power that 
they wouldn't otherwise have.
  Well, it is time to draw the line, and the American people did that 
in the last Presidential election. And I am very proud that the 
American people stood up to the most massive propaganda campaign 
against any Presidential candidate that I have seen in my lifetime, and 
that was against President Donald Trump.
  I just heard the other night, even the bankers up in Massachusetts 
and New York overwhelmingly were giving money to Hillary's campaign. 
But Donald Trump got a pittance. The establishment was out to destroy 
Donald Trump, because Donald Trump said that he was going to stop the 
flow of illegals, he was going to be watching out for the benefit of 
America's working people, and that would be the top priority.
  Well, one of the things we remember, he wanted to make it real. It 
wasn't just a bunch of rhetoric. He kept talking about how he would 
build a huge wall. Now, we all know that ``a huge'' wasn't around 
before Donald Trump. I don't remember people using that phraseology. 
And what we have got now is Donald Trump is moving forward. The 
President of the United States is moving forward to fulfill his 
promise.
  We should not have a situation where politics get in the way by 
people who lost the election and are now trying to stop and interfere 
with those people who won the election. That is what the democratic 
process is all about. And the proposal that I am making when it comes 
to border security is that--and I was very honored to be asked into the 
Oval Office by President Trump and to give him some ideas that might be 
good ideas on how to handle some of these problems.
  What I suggested to him is, any wall that he has suggested will be 
built along our southern border will cost tens of billions of dollars. 
Well, I had a proposal that I made to him, and I have made to the 
leadership here in the House, and I hope that they do not ignore this 
because it is vitally important if we are serious about stopping this 
massive flow of illegal immigrants into our country. We have to be 
building that wall, if nothing else, as symbolism that this is a 
sovereign country, and we demand that our border laws be respected.
  Well, what I am proposing is a change from a currently existing 
immigration law. And that is, we bring in 1 million legal immigrants 
every year. But guess what? Of that 1 million legal immigrants that we 
permit in--which I applaud--but among that 1 million legal immigrants, 
there are 50,000 of them coming in who are selected. What?
  They are not selected by a process where you study who is what, who 
we need here, what kind of skills we need. They are selected by a 
lottery. They are selected by a lottery, just pulling them out of 
nowhere. Yes, they are vetted all right, but they are not in any way 
rationally designed, them coming here, in a way that would help the 
American people.
  Well, what I am suggesting is that 50,000 people--we do not want to 
decrease the number of legal immigration. We don't want to decrease 
legal immigration. So we have a 50,000 slot. If we eliminated that 
stupid lottery that we don't even decide who is coming in, that it is 
left up to chance, well, we eliminate that, and then we set up a 
special fund. And the fund is a dedicated fund that whoever puts in $1 
million into that dedicated fund will do so in exchange for immediate 
residency and U.S. citizenship within 2 years.

                              {time}  1815

  In other words, foreign people who are successful in whatever they 
have done in order to accumulate wealth, and we are not going to bring 
in criminals, it is going to be vetted just like every other legal 
immigrant will be vetted to make sure they are not criminals or 
terrorists or anything, but people who are overseas who would love to 
become U.S. citizens, that they will be given guaranteed U.S. 
citizenship within 2 years.
  Now, that would mean $1 million per person, and perhaps we might want 
to say that individuals could bring in their immediate family, minors, 
for $500,000. But whatever that is, the revenue raised from this 
program could be put into that special account managed by the Secretary 
of Homeland Security for the purpose of carrying out border security 
and immigration enforcement activities.
  In other words, the President of the United States does not have to 
have the burden of raising taxes in order to pay for that Southern 
border wall. He does not have to pass it off on further generations by 
increasing the debt by that level.
  We have a method in this to bring in a better quality of people who 
we need coming into our country rather than selecting at random and 
paying for a wall that will reestablish the security of the people of 
this country and will go a long way to establish a mindset around the 
world that no longer are our borders open. No longer, whoever can get 
over here, are we going to take in and then give them free education 
and free health care and let them commit crimes and not even be kicked 
out of the country for it. No. Those days are over, and this wall will 
symbolize that.
  What I have suggested, having these foreign wealthy people pay for 
that wall, makes it a real possibility. If people would be interested 
in talking to their Member of Congress, they can call or write, but 
they should call and say the idea of letting rich foreigners build that 
wall is the answer. Let's get going on it. Let's not wait for 5 years. 
Build the wall and let the others pay for it. That is a plan that will 
work.
  I would like to also discuss another issue that I have been involved 
in. But let me just note that, on the tax bill, I have also asked for 
an amendment that would increase the well-being. And, how do you say, 
right now our wealth is becoming so centralized in just a few hands.
  What we have now in the United States is a vision that the poor are 
getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. There is a problem with 
this concentration of wealth.
  Now, the reason we have that concentration of wealth is because there 
are a few people in our country that own capital, own the companies 
that produce the wealth. And over the years, that has been focused on 
fewer and fewer hands, and the working people are being shut out of a 
system that is something that they are essential players in.
  So with that said, I am certainly not against profit motive and I am 
certainly not against competition. I am certainly for the private 
sector and not for big bureaucracy. But if we just passed an incentive 
into our system, that incentive would be this: I am proposing that when 
an employer provides stock for his employees, it has to be an equal 
distribution to all the employees. Those employees don't have to pay 
income tax on it. And if those employees keep that stock for over 10 
years, the employees don't have to pay capital gains tax on it.

[[Page 6034]]

  So what we have got--if a company is successful and we have got a 
large increase in the value of that company, it is being shared with 
the workers in the company. It is not being held up in the one percent 
of the elite management. What we need to do is to make sure that we 
deal with this concentration of wealth because the American people, 
that is what it was all about. It wasn't about having some elite. That 
was what the Homestead Act was all about that helped my grandparents. 
We need a Homestead Act for people who are working in the various 
industries in our country. And tweaking the system with a little tax 
incentive like I am talking about, this would be an ESOP, which are 
already in existence but have very complicated structure associated 
with them, an expensive structure associated with them, that this would 
be like ESOPs on steroids. We will have working people thinking in 
terms of partnership with their employer instead of being on an 
adversarial relationship. People with startup companies will be able to 
get the top-quality people knowing if their company is successful, the 
capital gains tax will be zero for them who came onboard early on.
  This is another proposal that I am making, and I would hope that 
people will look at that again and ask their Congressman to consider 
Congressman Rohrabacher's Employee Ownership Bill, Expanding Employee 
Ownership.
  Finally, I would like to talk about one last issue that is something 
that is very controversial, I know, and I have never stepped away from 
being controversial. But what we have got here today is a major change 
in public attitude towards something that has been wrong for a long 
time but the public was not aware of it.
  I would hope that we do not pass up the chance again of legalizing 
the medical use of marijuana. And the fact is, 44 States have taken 
many restrictions off the use of medical marijuana.
  I have legislation that says respect State marijuana laws. This 
should be left up to the States. This should be left up to the people 
who decide for themselves whether or not they believe medical marijuana 
should be available to seniors, to veterans, and to other people. And 
we should stop paying money to the drug cartels by making sure that 
this medicine that we now know is possible with marijuana that we don't 
want to have the source being the drug cartels around the world.
  So I would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the medical 
marijuana initiative, what I have, which says we will respect medical 
marijuana laws and the United States.
  I would hope that my colleagues get the message. These are four very 
important issues. These are issues I spent a lot of time on, but I am 
doing that because I understand these are fundamental. We have to start 
doing more. If we are going to drain the swamp, as the President says, 
we have got to be working on the fundamentals that are wrong with the 
system rather than just trying to create some image of progress and 
image of activity here.
  We can do it. We have got good leadership here in the House. We have 
got a willingness to cooperate with the other side of the aisle. We 
have got a President who wants to work with us. Congress is here. We 
are in action, and we have got some great new creative ideas. Now the 
American people are welcome to participate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________




                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the 
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
  Accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m.), the House stood in 
recess.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  2331
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa) at 11 o'clock and 31 minutes 
p.m.

                          ____________________




                              ADJOURNMENT

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 32 minutes 
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, 
Thursday, April 27, 2017, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

                          ____________________




                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

       1147. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary, Bureau of 
     Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the 
     ``Iran-Related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts'' report 
     for the period of August 7, 2016 to February 6, 2017; to the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs.
       1148. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky 
     Aircraft Corporation Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2015-7095; 
     Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-085-AD; Amendment 39-18848; AD 
     2017-07-09] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 
     251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       1149. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Helicopters Deutschland GmbH [Docket No.: FAA-2016-3257; 
     Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-072-AD; Amendment 39-18846; AD 
     2017-07-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 
     251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       1150. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Bell 
     Helicopter Textron Canada Helicopters [Docket No.: FAA-2017-
     0189; Directorate Identifier 2017-SW-008-AD; Amendment 39-
     18847; AD 2017-05-51] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 
     2017, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, 
     Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure.
       1151. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2016-8184; Directorate Identifier 
     2016-NM-036-AD: Amendment 39-18843; AD 2017-07-05] (RIN: 
     2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       1152. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; 
     Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2016-6897; 
     Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-187-AD; Amendment 39-18853; AD 
     2017-08-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 
     251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       1153. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; 
     Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2016-9299; 
     Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-119-AD; Amendment 39-18851; AD 
     2017-08-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 
     251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       1154. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; 
     Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-
     2014-0651; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-043-AD; Amendment 
     39-18850; AD 2017-08-01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 
     2017, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, 
     Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure.
       1155. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Standard Instrument Approach 
     Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure 
     Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.: 31127; 
     Amdt. No.: 3741] received April 21, 2017, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 
     868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       1156. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; 
     Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-
     2016-9385; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-111-AD; Amendment 
     39-18844; AD 2017-07-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64)

[[Page 6035]]

     received April 21, 2017, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); 
     Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       1157. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; General 
     Electric Company Turbofan Engines [Docket No.: FAA-2013-0879; 
     Directorate Identifier 2013-NE-30-AD; Amendment 39-18842; AD 
     2017-07-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 
     251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       1158. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2017-0245; Directorate Identifier 
     2017-NM-023-AD; Amendment 39-18841; AD 2017-07-05] (RIN: 
     2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       1159. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; M7 
     Aerospace LLC Models Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2016-9531; 
     Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-011-AD; Amendment 39-18839; AD 
     2017-07-01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 
     251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       1160. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Embraer 
     S.A. Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2014-0059; Directorate 
     Identifier 2013-NM-075-AD; Amendment 39-18832; AD 2017-06-08] 
     (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 
     868); to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       1161. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Meggitt 
     (Troy), Inc. Combustion Heaters [Docket No.: FAA-2014-0603; 
     Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-026-AD; Amendment 39-18827; AD 
     2017-06-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 
     251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       1162. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2016-8851; Directorate Identifier 
     2016-NM-070-AD; Amendment 39-18831; AD 2017-06-07] (RIN: 
     2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       1163. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 
     Airplanes [Docket No.: FAA-2017-0245; Directorate Identifier 
     2017-NM-023-AD; Amendment 39-18841; AD 2017-07-03] (RIN: 
     2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       1164. A letter from the Management and Program Analyst, 
     FAA, Department of Transportation, transmitting the 
     Department's final rule -- Airworthiness Directives; American 
     Champion Aircraft Corp. [Docket No.: FAA-2017-0283; 
     Directorate Identifier 2017-CE-009-AD; Amendment 39-18849; AD 
     2017-07-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 21, 2017, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 
     251; (110 Stat. 868); to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
       1165. A letter from the Trial Attorney, Office of the Chief 
     Counsel, Federal Railroad Administration, transmitting the 
     Administration's final rule -- Implementation of the Federal 
     Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act for 
     a Violation of a Federal Railroad Safety Law, Federal 
     Railroad Administration Safety Regulation or Order, or the 
     Hazardous Material Transportation Laws or Regulations, 
     Orders, Special Permits, and Approvals Issued Under Those 
     Laws [Docket No.: FRA-2016-0021; Notice No.: 3] (RIN: 2130-
     AC59) received April 21, 2017, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); Public Law 104-121, Sec. 251; (110 Stat. 868); 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       1166. A letter from the Acting Under Secretary, Policy, 
     Department of Defense, transmitting a progress report for the 
     period of July 1, 2016, through September 30, 2016; jointly 
     to the Committees on Foreign Affairs and Armed Services.

                          ____________________




         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as 
follows:

       Mr. WOODALL: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 280. 
     Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1694) to require additional entities to be subject to the 
     requirements of section 552 of title 5, United States Code 
     (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act), and 
     for other purposes; providing for consideration of motions to 
     suspend the rules; and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) 
     of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain 
     resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules (Rept. 115-
     96). Referred to the House Calendar.

                          ____________________




                      PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the 
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:

           By Mr. HENSARLING (for himself, Mr. McHenry, Mr. 
             Huizenga, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Barr, Mrs. 
             Wagner, and Mr. Pearce):
       H.R. 10. A bill to create hope and opportunity for 
     investors, consumers, and entrepreneurs by ending bailouts 
     and Too Big to Fail, holding Washington and Wall Street 
     accountable, eliminating red tape to increase access to 
     capital and credit, and repealing the provisions of the Dodd-
     Frank Act that make America less prosperous, less stable, and 
     less free, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on 
     Agriculture, Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Oversight and 
     Government Reform, Transportation and Infrastructure, Rules, 
     the Budget, and Education and the Workforce, for a period to 
     be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. ROE of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. Fleischmann, 
             Mr. Kustoff of Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Duncan 
             of Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais, and Mrs. Black):
       H.R. 2146. A bill to amend the William Wilberforce 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to 
     require the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide notice 
     to State authorities when unaccompanied alien children are 
     placed in that State; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. COFFMAN:
       H.R. 2147. A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs to hire additional Veterans Justice Outreach 
     Specialists to provide treatment court services to justice-
     involved veterans, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Veterans' Affairs.
           By Mr. PITTENGER (for himself and Mr. David Scott of 
             Georgia):
       H.R. 2148. A bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act to clarify capital requirements for certain acquisition, 
     development, or construction loans; to the Committee on 
     Financial Services.
           By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas:
       H.R. 2149. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to require inclusion of the taxpayer's social security 
     number to claim the refundable portion of the child tax 
     credit; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. DeFAZIO (for himself, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Larsen 
             of Washington, and Mr. Ferguson):
       H.R. 2150. A bill to ensure that permits issued by the 
     Secretary of Transportation to foreign air carriers under the 
     United States-European Union Air Transport Agreement of April 
     2007 do not undermine labor rights or standards, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
           By Mr. POCAN (for himself, Mr. Lowenthal, Miss Rice of 
             New York, Ms. Norton, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. 
             Brownley of California, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Speier, Mr. 
             Grijalva, Mr. Langevin, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Jeffries, 
             Mr. Engel, Mr. Nadler, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. 
             Garamendi, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Cohen, Mrs. Watson 
             Coleman, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Ms. 
             Bonamici, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Pallone, Mr. 
             Swalwell of California, Ms. Titus, Mr. Peters, Mr. 
             Foster, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. 
             Ellison, Mr. Deutch, and Mr. Blumenauer):
       H.R. 2151. A bill to prevent harassment at institutions of 
     higher education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce.
           By Mr. POE of Texas (for himself and Mr. Walberg):
       H.R. 2152. A bill to require States and units of local 
     government receiving funds under grant programs operated by 
     the Department of Justice, which use such funds for pretrial 
     services programs, to submit to the Attorney General a report 
     relating to such program, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. ROTHFUS (for himself, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Cooper, 
             and Mr. Loebsack):
       H.R. 2153. A bill to hold the salaries of Members of a 
     House of Congress in escrow if

[[Page 6036]]

     the House of Congress does not agree to a budget resolution 
     or pass regular appropriation bills on a timely basis during 
     a Congress, and for other purposes; to the Committee on House 
     Administration.
           By Mr. CRAMER:
       H.R. 2154. A bill to rename the Red River Valley 
     Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota, as the 
     Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center; to the 
     Committee on Agriculture.
           By Mr. WALBERG (for himself and Mr. Cuellar):
       H.R. 2155. A bill to amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and 
     Technical Education Act of 2006 to authorize funds to 
     identify and eliminate excessive occupational licensure; to 
     the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
           By Mr. KNIGHT (for himself and Ms. Brownley of 
             California):
       H.R. 2156. A bill to provide for the establishment of a 
     national memorial and national monument to commemorate those 
     killed by the collapse of the Saint Francis Dam on March 12, 
     1928, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources.
           By Mr. BRAT (for himself, Mr. Meadows, Mr. McKinley, 
             Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. McClintock, Mr. 
             LaMalfa, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Olson, Mr. 
             Palmer, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Gosar, Mr. 
             Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Westerman, Mr. 
             Loudermilk, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Labrador, Mr. 
             Burgess, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. 
             Wittman, and Mr. Babin):
       H.R. 2157. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act to limit the authority of the President to withdraw 
     areas from oil and gas leasing, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources.
           By Mr. BEYER (for himself, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Huffman, 
             Mr. Pallone, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Norton, Ms. Lee, Mr. 
             Quigley, Mr. Keating, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Blunt 
             Rochester, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Connolly, Mr. Langevin, 
             Mr. Sanford, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Mr. Raskin, 
             Mr. Scott of Virginia, and Mr. Price of North 
             Carolina):
       H.R. 2158. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act to prohibit oil-, gas-, and methane hydrate-related 
     seismic activities in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South 
     Atlantic, and Straits of Florida planning areas of the outer 
     Continental Shelf, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Natural Resources.
           By Mr. CICILLINE (for himself, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Lee, 
             Mr. Langevin, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. 
             Slaughter, and Ms. Clark of Massachusetts):
       H.R. 2159. A bill to reduce the deficit by imposing a 
     minimum effective tax rate for high-income taxpayers; to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. CRIST:
       H.R. 2160. A bill to improve the safety of school buses, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on 
     Education and the Workforce, and Energy and Commerce, for a 
     period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
     case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. CURBELO of Florida (for himself, Mr. Soto, Ms. 
             Ros-Lehtinen, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz):
       H.R. 2161. A bill to adjust the immigration status of 
     certain Venezuelan nationals who are in the United States; to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois:
       H.R. 2162. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to 
     provide for automatic continuing resolutions; to the 
     Committee on Appropriations.
           By Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself, Ms. Slaughter, and Ms. 
             DeLauro):
       H.R. 2163. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act to require physicians and physician's offices to 
     be treated as covered device users required to report on 
     certain adverse events involving medical devices, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. FITZPATRICK (for himself, Ms. Slaughter, and Ms. 
             DeLauro):
       H.R. 2164. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act with respect to liability under State and local 
     requirements respecting devices; to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
           By Mr. GALLAGHER (for himself and Mr. McCaul):
       H.R. 2165. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     direct the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
     Administration (TSA) to make certain improvements in managing 
     TSA employee conduct, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security.
           By Mr. GOHMERT (for himself, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. 
             LaMalfa, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Cole, and 
             Mr. Wittman):
       H.R. 2166. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to 
     provide for the continuance of pay and allowances for members 
     of the Armed Forces, including reserve components thereof, 
     during lapses in appropriations; to the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
           By Mr. GRIFFITH (for himself, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. 
             Gosar):
       H.R. 2167. A bill to provide for no net increase in the 
     total acreage of certain Federal land under the jurisdiction 
     of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest 
     Service, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 
     for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
     each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
     the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. ISSA (for himself, Mrs. Comstock, Mr. Brendan F. 
             Boyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. Norton, Ms. Jackson Lee, 
             Mr. Weber of Texas, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Johnson of 
             Ohio, Mr. Beyer, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Connolly, Mr. 
             Donovan, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Royce of 
             California, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Chabot, and Mr. Duncan of 
             South Carolina):
       H.R. 2168. A bill to waive the passport fees for first 
     responders proceeding abroad to aid a foreign country 
     suffering from a natural disaster; to the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs.
           By Mr. KATKO (for himself, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. 
             Keating):
       H.R. 2169. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 to enhance information sharing in the Department of 
     Homeland Security State, Local, and Regional Fusion Center 
     Initiative, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security.
           By Mr. LaMALFA (for himself, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. 
             Abraham, Mr. Comer, Mr. Cook, Mr. Costa, Mr. Denham, 
             Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Knight, Ms. Matsui, Mr. 
             McClintock, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Rohrabacher, 
             Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Royce of California, Mr. Valadao, and 
             Mrs. Mimi Walters of California):
       H.R. 2170. A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 to allow the repair, expansion, and construction, 
     without elevation, of agricultural structures located in 
     special flood hazard zones, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Financial Services.
           By Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Ms. DelBene, Mr. 
             Blumenauer, and Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois):
       H.R. 2171. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to reduce taxpayer burdens and enhance taxpayer 
     protections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means.
           By Mrs. LOVE:
       H.R. 2172. A bill to amend the Federal Reserve Act to 
     remove the mandate on the Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee to focus 
     on maximum employment; to the Committee on Financial 
     Services.
           By Ms. MATSUI (for herself, Mr. Poe of Texas, and Mr. 
             Himes):
       H.R. 2173. A bill to improve passenger vessel security and 
     safety, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS (for herself, Mr. Barton, Mr. 
             Bishop of Utah, Mr. Buck, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cramer, 
             Mr. Emmer, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Flores, Mr. Jordan, 
             Mr. McClintock, Mr. Messer, Mr. Olson, Mr. Palmer, 
             Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Stewart, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. 
             Yoho, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Walker, Mr. Renacci, Mr. Blum, 
             Ms. Jenkins of Kansas, Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Smith of 
             Missouri, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Loudermilk, and Mr. Hudson):
       H.R. 2174. A bill to provide for a reauthorizing schedule 
     for unauthorized Federal programs, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Rules, and the Budget, for a 
     period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
     case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mrs. MURPHY of Florida (for herself, Mr. Gallego, 
             Mr. Moulton, Ms. Hanabusa, Ms. DelBene, Ms. Bordallo, 
             Mr. Castro of Texas, and Mr. Kilmer):
       H.R. 2175. A bill to direct the Director of National 
     Intelligence to establish an integration cell to monitor and 
     enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions with 
     respect to North Korea, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select).
           By Mrs. MURPHY of Florida (for herself, Ms. DelBene, 
             Mr. Gallego, Ms. Hanabusa, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr. 
             Castro of Texas):
       H.R. 2176. A bill to authorize the establishment of an 
     Asia-Pacific Defense Commission to enhance defense 
     cooperation between the United States and allies in the Asia-
     Pacific region, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 
     Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of

[[Page 6037]]

     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Ms. NORTON:
       H.R. 2177. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to 
     change the residency requirements for certain officials 
     serving in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Ms. NORTON:
       H.R. 2178. A bill to provide for the compensation of 
     Federal contractor employees that may be placed on unpaid 
     leave as a result of the Federal Government shutdown, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform.
           By Mr. ROUZER:
       H.R. 2179. A bill to require certain welfare programs to 
     deny benefits to persons who fail a drug test, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition 
     to the Committees on Agriculture, and Financial Services, for 
     a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
     each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
     the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Ms. SPEIER (for herself, Ms. Norton, Ms. DelBene, 
             Miss Rice of New York, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs. Napolitano, 
             Mr. Foster, Mr. Cicilline, Mr. Takano, Ms. Slaughter, 
             Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Sinema, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Jayapal, 
             Ms. Tsongas, Ms. Meng, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Heck, Ms. 
             McCollum, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Ellison, Ms. 
             DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Brownley of 
             California, Ms. Pingree, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Roybal-
             Allard, Mr. Yarmuth, Ms. Moore, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
             Welch, Mr. Bera, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Larsen of Washington, 
             Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Himes, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, 
             Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Price of North 
             Carolina, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Ms. 
             Lee, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Wasserman 
             Schultz, Mr. Delaney, Ms. Esty of Connecticut, Ms. 
             Titus, Mr. Peters, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Correa, Mr. 
             Espaillat, Ms. Matsui, and Mr. Swalwell of 
             California):
       H.R. 2180. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to 
     ensure that women members of the Armed Forces and their 
     families have access to the contraception they need in order 
     to promote the health and readiness of all members of the 
     Armed Forces, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Armed Services.
           By Mr. TIBERI (for himself, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, 
             Mr. Paulsen, and Mr. Reed):
       H.R. 2181. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to permit the consolidation of life insurance companies 
     with other companies; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. ZELDIN (for himself, Ms. DeLauro, Ms. Meng, Mr. 
             Engel, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. 
             Langevin, and Mr. Courtney):
       H.R. 2182. A bill to require the Comptroller General of the 
     United States to submit a report to Congress on the 
     alternatives for the final disposition of Plum Island, 
     including preservation of the island for conservation, 
     education, and research, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security.
           By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:
       H.J. Res. 99. A joint resolution making further continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2017, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Appropriations.
           By Mr. ZELDIN (for himself and Ms. Meng):
       H. Res. 279. A resolution recognizing Israeli-American 
     heritage and the contributions of the Israeli-American 
     community to the United States; to the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform.
           By Mr. CARDENAS (for himself, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Bishop 
             of Georgia, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Curbelo of Florida, Mr. 
             Conyers, Mrs. Love, Mr. Walker, Mr. Russell, Ms. 
             Bass, and Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois):
       H. Res. 281. A resolution expressing support for 
     designation of April 2017 as ``Second Chance Month''; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. DENT (for himself, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Joyce of 
             Ohio, Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia, Mrs. Carolyn B. 
             Maloney of New York, and Mr. Cooper):
       H. Res. 282. A resolution supporting State, local, and 
     community initiatives to encourage parents, teachers, camp 
     counselors, and childcare professionals to take measures to 
     prevent sunburns in the minors they care for, and expressing 
     the sense of the House of Representatives that State, local, 
     and community entities should continue to support efforts to 
     curb the incidences of skin cancer beginning with childhood 
     skin protection; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
     in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
     for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
     each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
     the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. LOWENTHAL (for himself and Mr. Fitzpatrick):
       H. Res. 283. A resolution expressing the sense of the House 
     of Representatives that congressional redistricting should be 
     reformed to remove political gerrymandering; to the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. McEACHIN (for himself, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. 
             Pallone, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Blumenauer, 
             Mr. Huffman, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Beyer, Mr. 
             Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brown of 
             Maryland, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Clay, 
             Mr. Connolly, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Dingell, Mr. Evans, 
             Ms. Fudge, Mr. Gallego, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. Hastings, 
             Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Johnson of 
             Georgia, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. Lee, Mr. 
             Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Ted Lieu of California, Mr. 
             Lipinski, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Ms. 
             McCollum, Mr. Moulton, Mrs. Murphy of Florida, Mr. 
             Nadler, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Norton, Mr. Payne, Mr. 
             Pocan, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Sablan, Mr. Thompson of 
             California, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Tonko, Ms. Wasserman 
             Schultz, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Velazquez, and Ms. 
             Wilson of Florida):
       H. Res. 284. A resolution expressing support for honoring 
     Earth Day, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. O'Halleran, Mr. 
             Reichert, and Mr. Pascrell):
       H. Res. 285. A resolution expressing the sense of the 
     United States House of Representatives that Congress and the 
     President should empower the creation of police and community 
     alliances designed to enhance and improve communication and 
     collaboration between members of the law enforcement 
     community and the public they serve; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.

                          ____________________




                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the 
specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the 
accompanying bill or joint resolution.

           By Mr. HENSARLING:
       H.R. 10.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (``To regulate Commerce with 
     foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the 
     Indian Tribes'');
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 (``To coin Money, regulate 
     the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard 
     of Weights and Measures'');
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 6 (``To provide for the 
     Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin 
     of the United States''); and
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (``To make all Laws which 
     shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
     foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this 
     Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any 
     Department or Officer thereof.'').
           By Mr. ROE of Tennessee:
       H.R. 2146.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The Constitution of the United States Article I, Section 8, 
     Clause 1 and Clause 18.
           By Mr. COFFMAN:
       H.R. 2147.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
           By Mr. PITTENGER:
       H.R. 2148.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I Section 1: All legislative Powers herein shall be 
     vested in a Congress of the United States
           By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas:
       H.R. 2149.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
           By Mr. DeFAZIO:
       H.R. 2150.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, Clause 3, and Clause 18 of 
     the Constitution.
           By Mr. POCAN:
       H.R. 2151.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
       The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce 
     with foreign Nations, and

[[Page 6038]]

     among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
           By Mr. POE of Texas:
       H.R. 2152.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18
           By Mr. ROTHFUS:
       H.R. 2153.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
           By Mr. CRAMER:
       H.R. 2154.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The constitutional authority on which this bill rests is in 
     section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
           By Mr. WALBERG:
       H.R. 2155.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the 
     United States; the power to regulate commerce among the 
     several states
           By Mr. KNIGHT:
       H.R. 2156.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I Section 8 Clause 18
       ``To make all Laws which shall be necessary and porper for 
     carrying into Execution and foregoing Powers, and all other 
     Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the 
     United States, or in any Department or Officer therof.''
           By Mr. BRAT:
       H.R. 2157.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2:
       ``The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all 
     needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or 
     other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in 
     this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any 
     Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.''
           By Mr. BEYER:
       H.R. 2158.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this 
     legislation is provided by Article I, Section 8 of the United 
     States Constitution.
           By Mr. CICILLINE:
       H.R. 2159.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution
            By Mr. CRIST:
       H.R. 2160.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The constitutional authority of Congress to enact this 
     legislation is provided by Article I, Section 8 of the United 
     States Constitution.
            By Mr. CURBELO of Florida:
       H.R. 2161.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: The Congress shall have 
     Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and 
     uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the 
     United States.
            By Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois:
       H.R. 2162.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States 
     Constitution.
            By Mr. FITZPATRICK:
       H.R. 2163.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
            By Mr. FITZPATRICK:
       H.R. 2164.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
            By Mr. GALLAGHER:
       H.R. 2165.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18--To make all Laws which 
     shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
     foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this 
     Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any 
     Department or Officer thereof.
            By Mr. GOHMERT:
       H.R. 2166.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution 
     sets forth the power of appropriations and states that ``No 
     Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of 
     Appropriations made by Law. . . .''
       In addition, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 states that 
     ``The Congress shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts 
     and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the 
     United States. . . .''
       Also, Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13 states that 
     Congress shall have power ``to raise and support Armies . . 
     .'' and ``to provide and maintain a Navy.''
            By Mr. GRIFFITH:
       H.R. 2167.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to 
     Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the United States 
     Constitution.
            By Mr. ISSA:
       H.R. 2168.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
            By Mr. KATKO:
       H.R. 2169.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 18--``To make all Laws which 
     shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the 
     foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this 
     Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in 
     any Department or Officer thereof.''
            By Mr. LaMALFA:
       H.R. 2170.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article One, Section 8, Clause 18 of the United States 
     Constitution
            By Mr. LEWIS of Georgia:
       H.R. 2171.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to 
     Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution 
     and its subsequent amendments, and further clarified and 
     interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.
            By Mrs. LOVE:
       H.R. 2172.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution.
            By Ms. MATSUI:
       H.R. 2173.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3
           By Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS:
       H.R. 2174.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 7, Clause 1: ``All Bills for raising 
     Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but 
     the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other 
     Bills.''
       Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: ``No Money shall be drawn 
     from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made 
     by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts 
     and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from 
     time to time.''
            By Mrs. MURPHY of Florida:
       H.R. 2175.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, 
     which gives Congress the power to provide for the common 
     defense and to make all laws necessary and proper to carry 
     out this power.
            By Mrs. MURPHY of Florida:
       H.R. 2176.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, 
     which gives Congress the power to provide for the common 
     defense and to make all laws necessary and proper to carry 
     out this power.
            By Ms. NORTON:
       H.R. 2177.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       clause 18 of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.
            By Ms. NORTON:
       H.R. 2178.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution.
            By Mr. ROUZER:
       H.R. 2179.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
       The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, 
     Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debt and provide for 
     the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; 
     but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform 
     throughout the United States.
            By Ms. SPEIER:
       H.R. 2180.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to 
     Congress under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States 
     Constitution.
            By Mr. TIBERI:
       H.R. 2181.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Clause 1 of Section 8 of Article I
            By Mr. ZELDIN:
       H.R. 2182.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article 1, Sections 8 & 9 of the United States 
     Constitution.
            By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:
       H.J. Res. 99.

[[Page 6039]]

       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The principal constitutional authority for this legislation 
     is clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the Constitution of 
     the United States (the appropriation power), which states: 
     ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . . .'' In 
     addition, clause 1 of section 8 of article I of the 
     Constitution (the spending power) provides: ``The Congress 
     shall have the Power . . . to pay the Debts and provide for 
     the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. 
     . . .'' Together, these specific constitutional provisions 
     establish the congressional power of the purse, granting 
     Congress the authority to appropriate funds, to determine 
     their purpose, amount, and period of availability, and to set 
     forth terms and conditions governing their use.

                          ____________________




                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions, as follows:

       H.R. 37: Mr. Loudermilk.
       H.R. 44: Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
       H.R. 80: Mr. Barletta.
       H.R. 82: Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia.
       H.R. 112: Ms. Brownley of California.
       H.R. 115: Mr. Poe of Texas.
       H.R. 179: Mr. Lynch, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Cole, and Ms. 
     DeLauro.
       H.R. 256: Mr. Sessions, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. 
     McKinley.
       H.R. 371: Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania.
       H.R. 389: Mr. Valadao.
       H.R. 392: Mr. Mullin, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. 
     Carbajal, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Graves of Missouri, 
     Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. Lawson of Florida, 
     Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Michael F. Doyle of Pennsylvania, Ms. 
     Tsongas, Mr. Higgins of New York, Mr. Jeffries, and Mr. Reed.
       H.R. 448: Mrs. Davis of California and Ms. Roybal-Allard.
       H.R. 453: Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Jones, and Mr. 
     O'Halleran.
       H.R. 488: Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Rosen.
       H.R. 490: Mr. Webster of Florida.
       H.R. 499: Mr. Sanford.
       H.R. 510: Mr. Poe of Texas.
       H.R. 520: Mr. Stewart, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Renacci, Mr. 
     Fleischmann, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Mooney of West 
     Virginia, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Ms. Cheney, and Mr. Latta.
       H.R. 553: Mr. DesJarlais.
       H.R. 566: Mr. Bacon and Mr. Russell.
       H.R. 592: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Lawson of Florida, 
     and Mr. Bera.
       H.R. 608: Mr. Khanna.
       H.R. 613: Mr. Reichert, Mr. Valadao, and Mr. Poe of Texas.
       H.R. 619: Mrs. Hartzler and Mr. Messer.
       H.R. 632: Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. 
     Nolan, and Ms. Sanchez.
       H.R. 681: Mr. Bacon and Mr. Higgins of Louisiana.
       H.R. 721: Ms. Esty of Connecticut.
       H.R. 747: Mr. Upton, Mr. Moolenaar, Mrs. Roby, Mr. Bacon, 
     and Mr. Smucker.
       H.R. 750: Mr. Deutch.
       H.R. 782: Mr. Bacon.
       H.R. 785: Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Rouzer, and Mr. 
     Bridenstine.
       H.R. 807: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Mr. McGovern, and Mrs. 
     Love.
       H.R. 810: Mr. Cicilline.
       H.R. 813: Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Castro of Texas.
       H.R. 820: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Latta, and Mr. 
     Moulton.
       H.R. 828: Mr. Cole.
       H.R. 830: Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania and Mr. Coffman.
       H.R. 881: Ms. Sanchez.
       H.R. 909: Mr. Ruiz and Mr. Kind.
       H.R. 918: Ms. Rosen.
       H.R. 919: Mr. Lipinski.
       H.R. 939: Mr. Soto and Mr. Fitzpatrick.
       H.R. 986: Mr. Bridenstine.
       H.R. 989: Mr. Cook and Mr. Ratcliffe.
       H.R. 990: Mr. Cook and Mr. Ratcliffe.
       H.R. 997: Mr. Stivers.
       H.R. 1005: Mr. Rogers of Alabama.
       H.R. 1017: Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. 
     Donovan, and Mr. Kelly of Mississippi.
       H.R. 1027: Mr. David Scott of Georgia.
       H.R. 1057: Mr. Hill.
       H.R. 1058: Mr. Blumenauer.
       H.R. 1090: Mr. Nolan.
       H.R. 1104: Mr. Ryan of Ohio and Mr. Al Green of Texas.
       H.R. 1116: Mr. Coffman, Mr. Young of Iowa, Mrs. Noem, Mr. 
     Johnson of Ohio, and Mr. Paulsen.
       H.R. 1120: Mr. Castro of Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and 
     Ms. Stefanik.
       H.R. 1141: Mr. LoBiondo.
       H.R. 1146: Mr. Serrano.
       H.R. 1148: Mr. Walz.
       H.R. 1149: Mr. King of Iowa.
       H.R. 1155: Mr. Walz.
       H.R. 1156: Mr. Higgins of Louisiana.
       H.R. 1180: Mr. Smucker and Mr. Brooks of Alabama.
       H.R. 1192: Mr. Loudermilk.
       H.R. 1200: Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois and Mr. 
     Ruppersberger.
       H.R. 1212: Mr. Cicilline.
       H.R. 1235: Mr. Courtney, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Sean Patrick 
     Maloney of New York; Mr. Roskam, Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Schakowsky, 
     Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico, Ms. 
     DeGette, and Ms. DeLauro.
       H.R. 1239: Mr. Schneider.
       H.R. 1241: Mr. Valadao.
       H.R. 1253: Ms. Clark of Massachusetts.
       H.R. 1272: Mr. Smith of New Jersey and Mr. MacArthur.
       H.R. 1300: Mr. Al Green of Texas and Mr. LoBiondo.
       H.R. 1310: Ms. Shea-Porter.
       H.R. 1317: Mr. Palazzo.
       H.R. 1322: Mrs. Murphy of Florida and Mr. Vela.
       H.R. 1334: Mr. Cole.
       H.R. 1379: Mr. Gallego, Mr. Thompson of California, Mrs. 
     Beatty, and Ms. Speier.
       H.R. 1393: Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Moolenaar.
       H.R. 1405: Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of 
     New Mexico.
       H.R. 1421: Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
       H.R. 1444: Ms. Brownley of California and Mr. Sarbanes.
       H.R. 1447: Ms. Tenney and Mr. Lowenthal.
       H.R. 1456: Ms. Tsongas, Mr. Peters, Mr. Polis, Mr. Pocan, 
     Mr. Suozzi, Ms. DelBene, Mr. O'Halleran, Mr. McEachin, Mr. 
     Yarmuth, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Schneider.
       H.R. 1457: Mr. Byrne.
       H.R. 1468: Mr. Bacon.
       H.R. 1478: Mr. Meeks and Mr. Cummings.
       H.R. 1481: Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire.
       H.R. 1485: Mr. Barletta.
       H.R. 1515: Mr. Fitzpatrick.
       H.R. 1516: Ms. Blunt Rochester.
       H.R. 1528: Mr. Coffman, Mr. Nolan, and Mr. Lamborn.
       H.R. 1532: Mr. Cook.
       H.R. 1544: Mr. Taylor and Ms. Matsui.
       H.R. 1552: Mr. Knight.
       H.R. 1555: Mr. Russell.
       H.R. 1562: Mr. Gallego.
       H.R. 1570: Mrs. Beatty.
       H.R. 1588: Ms. Bonamici.
       H.R. 1599: Mr. Lamborn.
       H.R. 1625: Mr. Poe of Texas.
       H.R. 1626: Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. Faso, Mr. 
     Fitzpatrick, Mr. Costa, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Valadao, and Mr. 
     Wittman.
       H.R. 1632: Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Luetkemeyer.
       H.R. 1635: Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Messer, 
     and Mrs. Radewagen.
       H.R. 1644: Mrs. Wagner.
       H.R. 1651: Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico and Mr. Donovan.
       H.R. 1661: Mr. Nolan.
       H.R. 1663: Mr. Huffman and Mr. Moulton.
       H.R. 1665: Mr. Barletta.
       H.R. 1674: Ms. Esty of Connecticut and Mr. Larson of 
     Connecticut.
       H.R. 1676: Mr. Wittman and Mr. Luetkemeyer.
       H.R. 1677: Mr. Russell, Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida, Mrs. 
     Brooks of Indiana, and Ms. Titus.
       H.R. 1683: Mr. Gallego, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Ms. 
     Jackson Lee, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Correa, Mr. Tonko, 
     Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Kilmer, and Mr. 
     Rush.
       H.R. 1697: Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mrs. Mimi Walters of 
     California, Mr. Faso, Mr. Sires, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Costello of 
     Pennsylvania, and Mr. Young of Alaska.
       H.R. 1698: Mr. Budd, Mrs. Mimi Walters of California, Mr. 
     Faso, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Gallego, Mr. 
     Young of Alaska, and Mr. Luetkemeyer.
       H.R. 1711: Mrs. Demings.
       H.R. 1731: Mr. Barletta.
       H.R. 1759: Ms. Bonamici.
       H.R. 1761: Mr. Scalise and Mr. Biggs.
       H.R. 1772: Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico and Mr. 
     Garamendi.
       H.R. 1777: Mr. Harris, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Johnson of 
     Louisiana, Mr. Poliquin, Mr. Young of Iowa, Mr. Latta, Mr. 
     Simpson, Mr. Bacon, and Mr. Hudson.
       H.R. 1779: Mr. Loebsack.
       H.R. 1794: Mr. Bacon, Mr. Wittman, and Mr. Gaetz.
       H.R. 1796: Mr. Himes.
       H.R. 1811: Ms. Tenney.
       H.R. 1813: Mr. King of Iowa.
       H.R. 1819: Ms. Lofgren.
       H.R. 1820: Ms. Lee.
       H.R. 1823: Mr. DeFazio and Ms. Lee.
       H.R. 1824: Mr. DeFazio and Ms. Lee.
       H.R. 1825: Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Mr. Ellison, Mrs. Comstock, 
     and Ms. Bonamici.
       H.R. 1833: Mr. Brown of Maryland and Mr. Meeks.
       H.R. 1838; Mr. Valadao.
       H.R. 1853: Mr. Meeks, Ms. Moore, and Ms. Jayapal.
       H.R. 1874: Mr. Swalwell of California.
       H.R. 1882: Ms. Speier, Mr. Richmond, and Mrs. Beatty.
       H.R. 1891: Mr. Valadao.
       H.R. 1892: Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Swalwell of California, 
     and Mr. Farenthold.
       H.R. 1895: Mr. Russell.
       H.R. 1899: Mr. Kilmer and Mr. Veasey.
       H.R. 1902: Miss Rice of New York.
       H.R. 1910: Mr. Cole and Ms. Tenney.
       H.R. 1919: Mr. Culberson.
       H.R. 1921: Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
       H.R. 1928: Mr. Cole, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Kuster of New 
     Hampshire, and Ms. Shea-Porter.
       H.R. 1940: Mr. Serrano.

[[Page 6040]]


       H.R. 1953: Mr. Faso and Mr. Wittman.
       H.R. 1957: Mr. Nadler, Mr. Polis, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Deutch, 
     Ms. Titus, and Ms. Bonamici.
       H.R. 1971: Mr. Latta.
       H.R. 1989: Mr. Royce of California, Mr. Marshall, Mr. 
     Lamborn, Mr. LaMalfa, and Mr. Calvert.
       H.R. 1991: Mr. Meehan, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Mr. 
     Dent.
       H.R. 1997: Mr. Poe of Texas.
       H.R. 2000: Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. 
     Kuster of New Hampshire, Mr. Swalwell of California, and Ms. 
     Wasserman Schultz.
       H.R. 2001: Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. 
     Kuster of New Hampshire, Mr. Swalwell of California, and Ms. 
     Wasserman Schultz.
       H.R. 2004: Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Bergman, and Mr. Bishop 
     of Michigan.
       H.R. 2023: Mr. Palazzo.
       H.R. 2024: Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida.
       H.R. 2029: Mr. Dunn, Mr. Posey, and Mr. Olson.
       H.R. 2043: Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. 
     Raskin, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Levin.
       H.R. 2054: Mr. Sanford.
       H.R. 2096: Ms. Lee.
       H.R. 2097: Mr. Cole and Mr. Hunter.
       H.R. 2106: Mr. Cole.
       H.R. 2108: Mr. Gallego and Mr. Perlmutter.
       H.R. 2121: Mr. Loudermilk.
       H.R. 2132: Mr. King of New York and Mr. Vela.
       H.R. 2145: Ms. Moore and Mr. Perlmutter.
       H.J. Res. 51: Mr. Cole.
       H.J. Res. 88: Ms. Clark of Massachusetts.
       H. Con. Res. 8: Mr. Stivers, Mr. King of New York, and Mr. 
     Cole.
       H. Con. Res. 10: Mr. Luetkemeyer.
       H. Con. Res. 13: Mr. McHenry, Mr. Faso, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
     Buchanan, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Gonzalez of Texas, and Mr. Lewis of 
     Minnesota.
       H. Con. Res. 37: Mr. Hunter.
       H. Con. Res. 43: Mr. Carson of Indiana.
       H. Con. Res. 45: Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of 
     New York, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Norton, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. 
     Grijalva, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Ms. Pingree, Mrs. 
     Radewagen, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Rush, Mr. Deutch, Mr. 
     Bergman, and Mr. Gallego.
       H. Res. 15: Ms. Frankel of Florida, Mr. Hastings, Mr. 
     Vargas, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Ms. Fudge, and 
     Mrs. Lawrence.
       H. Res. 28: Mr. Lawson of Florida, Mr. Murphy of 
     Pennsylvania, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Kilmer.
       H. Res. 31: Mr. Raskin, Mr. Takano, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. 
     Cartwright, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Jayapal, Mr. Sherman, and 
     Mr. Himes.
       H. Res. 85: Mr. Jeffries.
       H. Res. 90: Mr. Khanna.
       H. Res. 108: Mr. Huffman.
       H. Res. 218: Mr. Cook and Mr. Schneider.
       H. Res. 220: Mr. Schneider.
       H. Res. 239: Mr. Sires, Mr. Castro of Texas, and Mr. 
     Deutch.
       H. Res. 249: Mr. Trott.
       H. Res. 259: Mr. Francis Rooney of Florida and Mrs. Torres.
       H. Res. 269: Mrs. Wagner.

                          ____________________




    CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF 
                                BENEFITS

  Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional 
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were 
submitted as follows:

                      Offered By Mr. Frelinghuysen

       H.J. Res. 99, making further continuing appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2017, and for other purposes, does not contain 
     any congressional earmark, limited tax benefits, or limited 
     tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.
       The amendment to be offered by Representative Chaffetz, or 
     a designee, to H.R. 1694, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records 
     Act of 2017, does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
     limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
     in clause 9 of rule XXI.

                          ____________________




        DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions, as follows;

       H.J. Res. 50: Mr. Davidson.
       
       


[[Page 6041]]

                          EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
                          ____________________


               HONORING THE SMITHVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SAM GRAVES

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I 
pause to thank and honor the Smithville Police Department for their 
efforts in serving Smithville following the March 6, 2017 tornado.
  The EF-2 rated tornado left a trail of destruction up to 1,000 feet 
wide and 18 miles long. In Smithville, over 60 houses were damaged with 
several completely destroyed, resulting in over 65 tons of debris. 
Miraculously, no injuries were sustained during the storm.
  After the storm, officers from the Smithville Police Department 
helped set up a perimeter, went door-to-door making sure residents were 
safe, and protected the neighborhood with a 24/7 presence in the days 
that followed. The effect of the police department on the neighborhoods 
affected by the tornado cannot be understated, whether through making 
the victims feel safe from scroungers or looters or by helping 
residents with their physical needs throughout the recovery.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and the community of Smithville 
in thanking Chief Jason Lockridge and the officers and staff of the 
Smithville Police Department for their service following the March 6 
tornado and wishing them God's blessings and protection in the years to 
come.

                          ____________________




                           COMMEMORATING WWI

                                 ______
                                 

                              HON. TED POE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago today, the House of 
Representatives voted in support of the United States' entrance into 
World War I. The Great War was considered to be the war to end all 
wars.
  Four million Americans, including 200,000 Texans, proudly served 
during World War I. Boys who grew up on Texas farms suddenly became men 
as they found themselves in the muddy, rainy, and bloody trenches an 
ocean away.
  The life of a Doughboy was hard. Soldiers were constantly bombarded 
with artillery and machine gun fire. They often faced the danger of 
traipsing over the trenches and crossing no man's land, repelling the 
enemy.
  In the midst of battle and in the face of the enemy, our men 
displayed tremendous gallantry. Four Texans were awarded the 
Congressional Medal of Honor for their heroic actions. Their names are: 
Daniel R. Edwards, David E. Hayden, Samuel M. Sampler, and David B. 
Barkley.
  One hundred and one years later we still remember the brave warriors 
of WWI. World War I changed our nation, our people, and our world.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________




               A GRATEFUL THANK YOU TO A TRUSTED ADVISOR

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL T. McCAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the professional 
achievements and dedication of Cindy Simms who recently began the 
newest chapter of her esteemed career of public service in the 
Executive Office of the President. Cindy was most recently my Director 
of Member Services and a Senior Advisor for the House Homeland Security 
Committee. Her insight was an invaluable asset to my Committee and 
Cindy's vision and determination allowed her to grow in her role as a 
vital part of the Committee's daily operation and strategy.
  Cindy has been involved in politics at all levels of government which 
has contributed to her breadth of knowledge and keen political mind. A 
native Californian, Cindy began her career working for a state senator 
before joining the Schwarzenegger gubernatorial campaign and later 
working in the governor's office as a legislative analyst. Cindy then 
answered her professional calling and moved to the East Coast where she 
served in the George W. Bush White House at the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. She later worked for both the Department of Homeland 
Security and Coast Guard, focusing her efforts on issues of national 
defense.
  We relied heavily on Cindy's leadership and outreach as the Director 
of Member Services for the Homeland Security Committee. Cindy is a true 
professional and a trusted advisor. Her influence, however, extended 
across the Committee as she assisted the offices of all Republican 
Members. Cindy worked tirelessly to keep Members and staff engaged in 
Committee activities and went out of her way to facilitate 
opportunities for every single one of the 18 Republicans on the 
Committee. Her legacy lives on in the tremendous growth in outreach we 
have experienced during her tenure here. I will always be grateful for 
the personal relationships she built with the Members of this 
Committee, myself included, as well as the professional relationships 
she grew with outside coalitions and stakeholder groups to enhance the 
Committee's involvement and influence.
  The White House is lucky to have Cindy on their team. Her political 
insight, professional demeanor, and strong relationships built during 
her time on Capitol Hill will be a great asset to President Trump. Her 
work ethic, determination to grow, and innovative vision make Cindy an 
excellent fit to work in the highest office in the land.

                          ____________________




                               TOM CLARK

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ED PERLMUTTER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Tom Clark for 
his leadership, vision and lasting impact on Denver and Colorado as the 
CEO of the Metro Economic Development Corporation and Executive Vice 
President of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.
  With more than 30 years of economic development experience at the 
state, regional, county and city level, Tom's unique perspective and 
wealth of knowledge is unparalleled. Tom's career spans four decades 
from Director of Commercial and Industrial Development for the Illinois 
Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, through positions with 
the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Denver Corporation, 
the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, the Jefferson Economic Council, and 
the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.
  Tom was the founder and first president of the Metro Denver Network, 
the Metro Denver region's first economic development program, for which 
he received the Arthur D. Little Award for Excellence in Economic 
Development. In 2012, Tom was recognized as the Denver Post's Business 
Person of the Year as well as awarded the Denver Business Journal's 
Power Book Award for Economic Development and Government. He has also 
been recognized as one of the nation's top economic development 
professionals by the Council on Urban Economic Development.
  I extend my deepest appreciation for Tom and his dedication to our 
great state, and wish him the best of luck in retirement and future 
endeavors.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. GEORGE HOLDING

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen travel delays, I missed 
the following votes on Tuesday, April 25, 2017:
  Roll Call Vote No. 222: H. Res. 187, Relating to efforts to respond 
to the famine in South. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YEA''.

[[Page 6042]]

  Roll Call Vote No. 223: H.R. 876, the Aviation Employee Screening and 
Security Enhancement Act of 2017. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``YEA''.

                          ____________________




 HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE AND THE 69TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. SCOTT TAYLOR

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record on behalf of my 
constituent, Rabbi Dr. Israel Zoberman. Rabbi Zoberman is the Founding 
Rabbi of Congregation Beth Chaverim in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Born 
in Chu, Kazakhstan (USSR) in 1945, he is the son of Polish Holocaust 
Survivors. Rabbi Zoberman asked me to include the following remarks in 
the Record:

       We remember lest the world forgets or denies the genocidal 
     tragedy that befell the Jewish people at the hands of Nazi 
     Germany and its collaborators of the greatest crime in human 
     history. We dare not forget the six million innocent Jewish 
     victims who were all begrudged their covenantal bond with 
     Israel's God of compassion, caring and love, ever prodding 
     the human family to rise higher and higher. So much that is 
     precious has been forever lost. Nazi ideology sought to 
     eradicate Western civilization's life affirming Judeo- 
     Christian system. We remember the survivors whose numbers are 
     now being naturally diminished, and their resilient spirit 
     that allows them to rebuild their lives with the affirmation 
     of life's undying goodness and the human capacity to overcome 
     evil. We remember the rescuers, those righteous gentiles, who 
     risked their own lives and the lives of their loved ones to 
     protect and save vulnerable Jewish lives. Last but not least, 
     we remember the liberators and heroes who paid the ultimate 
     sacrifice, fighting to preserve human dignity.
       My Jewish friend, Ed Shames, is one of the greatest of the 
     Greatest Generation whose legendary legacy is captured in 
     Airborne (the Combat Story of Ed Shames of Easy Company) by 
     Ian Gardner. Edward David Shames was born on June 13, 1922, 
     in Virginia Beach, when it was but a rural community. He was 
     the youngest of the four children, of David and Sadie, who 
     ran the ``Shames Provisions'' country store, with the family 
     living above it. The father's sudden death at age 42 and the 
     Great Depression challenged the family. He grew up rowing and 
     fishing in Chesapeake Bay, target practicing with his 
     father's pistols and learning navigation when hiking with a 
     gift of maps and a compass from his sacrificial mother. 
     Shames went to great length to firmly train his third 
     platoon. Though his strictness was resented by some, it did 
     pay in saved lives. Not only did Ed hold the best record for 
     saved lives among the Division's 500 platoons, he also was 
     the Division's first to receive a battlefield commission 
     following D-Day. Furthermore, he was the first officer of his 
     Division to enter Dachau a few days following its liberation 
     and the horrors he faced are still with him today. The book's 
     sales proceeds admiringly go toward wounded warriors and 
     their families. I can personally attest to Col. Shames' keen 
     convictions, biting humor, and profound humility of a 
     soldier's soldier and a hero's hero. He was honored by the 
     French Government and the legislature in Richmond, Virginia.
       As we celebrate Israel's 69th Anniversary, we look forward 
     with lasting gratitude to the 50th Jubilee of the 1967 Six-
     Day-War miraculous victory, and the reunification of 
     Jerusalem, the Jewish people's eternal capital. We recall the 
     preceding gripping fear of another Holocaust, this time by 
     the surrounding and menacing Arab states begrudging the 
     triumphant survival of European Jewry's remnant which 
     includes my own family. At last, all of Jerusalem's holy 
     sites are safeguarded and respected. We pray for Shalom's 
     blessing of elusive peace to embrace Israelis and 
     Palestinians with the latter finally accepting the 
     exceptional return of an ancient people uprooted from its 
     native land by the Roman sword's power. For two trying 
     millennia, Israelis, never abandoned its divine bond with 
     Zion and Jerusalem, thus proving the superiority of the human 
     soul's power.
       We marvel at Israel's world-class, astonishing 
     accomplishments and innovations in its brief and challenging 
     years of renewed sovereignty, even as it faces existential 
     threats from a nuclear capable seeking Iran, its proxies', 
     and the close presence of ISIS and Jihadist groups. The 
     genocidal tragic Syrian scenario is entering its seventh year 
     of massive human destruction and the greatest refugee crisis 
     since WWII. President Trump's military response to the latest 
     gas attack on the long abandoned Syrian civilians including 
     children, reminiscent of the Holocaust, is deeply 
     appreciated. New opportunities have emerged for rapprochement 
     between Israel and the Sunni Arab states. We bemoan the 
     precipitous and alarming global rise of anti-Semitism, the 
     world's oldest hatred that made the Holocaust possible. The 
     threats within the United States against Jewish institutions, 
     the desecration of Jewish cemeteries and anti- Israel/Jewish 
     activities in American schools make mockery of sacred memory, 
     justice and truth, while enabling aggressors to persist and 
     delay peace.
       The United Nations, created in the wake of WWII and the 
     Holocaust, has shamefully turned into a bastion of anti-
     Israel propaganda as we praise Israel's valiant defense as 
     well as staunch opposition to the destructive BDS movement by 
     American Ambassador Nikki Haley, a shining light in a house 
     of darkness. The unique bond of genuine brotherhood with the 
     United States, vital to both countries, is between the 
     world's leading democracy and the only democracy in the 
     Middle East. The constructive role of American Jewry cannot 
     be overstated.

                          ____________________




                 HONORING THE CLAY COUNTY PARK RANGERS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SAM GRAVES

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I 
pause to thank and honor the Clay County Park Rangers for their efforts 
in serving Smithville following the March 6, 2017 tornado.
  The EF-2 rated tornado left a trail of destruction up to 1,000 feet 
wide and 18 miles long. In Smithville, over 60 houses were damaged with 
several completely destroyed, resulting in over 65 tons of debris. 
Miraculously, no injuries were sustained during the storm.
  After the storm, officers from the Clay County Park Rangers helped 
set up a perimeter, went door-to-door making sure residents were safe, 
and helped protect the neighborhood with a 24/7 presence in the days 
that followed. The effect of the rangers on the neighborhoods affected 
by the tornado cannot be understated, whether through making the 
victims feel safe from scroungers or looters or by helping residents 
with their physical needs throughout the recovery.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and the community of Smithville 
in thanking Interim Park Security Manager John Davis and the rangers 
and staff of the Clay County Park Rangers for their service following 
the March 6 tornado and wishing them God's blessings and protection in 
the years to come.

                          ____________________




  PRAISING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES INVOLVED IN SOLVING THE MURDER OF 
                      CHIEF DEPUTY CLINT GREENWOOD

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BRIAN BABIN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep appreciation 
and admiration to all of the Texas federal law enforcement officers who 
worked so diligently in getting to the bottom of the tragic and 
senseless murder of Harris County Precinct 3 Constable, Assistant Chief 
Deputy Greenwood.
  My hat goes off to the Baytown Police Department, Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI), U.S. Marshals Service, Houston Police Department, 
Gulf Coast Violent Offenders Task Force, Texas Department of Public 
Safety (DPS), Texas Rangers, Harris County Sheriff's Department, and 
Harris County District Attorney. These men and women showed tremendous 
determination and commitment in their efforts to find this evil 
perpetrator and deliver justice. While we continue to mourn the loss of 
another one of our brave Texas law enforcement officers, their hard 
work and tireless efforts have helped bring healing and closure to the 
family and the entire law enforcement community.
  My prayers continue to be with the family of Assistant Chief Deputy 
Greenwood.

                          ____________________




        HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF EARTH FRIENDLY PRODUCTS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BRAD SHERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recognize the 
outstanding public service of the Vlahakis family on the occasion of 
the 50th Anniversary of the founding of their family's company, Earth 
Friendly Products. The success story of the Vlahakis family is one of 
love, labor, and perseverance. This family owned and operated company 
began with the vision of Van Vlahakis, who immigrated to

[[Page 6043]]

America from Greece with just $22 in his pocket. He spoke little 
English, yet he made something of himself, studying chemistry at 
Roosevelt University and founding the company out of his garage in 
1967.
  Born out of Van's own experience suffering the effects of exposure to 
harsh chemicals, Earth Friendly Products was a green company before 
being green was fashionable.
  The Vlahakis family's commitment to sustainability is evidenced by 
their decision to use safe ingredients, earning recognition as the 2015 
EPA Safer Choice Partner of the Year. Just last year, they opened a new 
Carbon Neutral Platinum Zero Waste manufacturing center, demonstrating 
leadership in the cause of sound environmental stewardship.
  The Vlahakis' dedication to a healthier and happier planet applies 
not just to their corporate philosophy, but to their community. They 
have created good jobs and voluntarily implemented a $17 per hour 
company-wide minimum wage, one of the highest in the nation. They also 
bring interactive educational programs directly to kids in schools, and 
host field trips at their facilities.
  Although Van Vlahakis passed away in 2014, his legacy lives on under 
the leadership of his daughter and my friend, Kelly Vlahakis-Hanks. 
Kelly is a champion in the Greek-American community and she has been an 
inspiration to those in the green movement.
  Fifty years after Van Vlahakis had the foresight to make products 
with safe ingredients and sustainable practices, much of America has 
caught up to his vision. We now expect the goods we purchase to be both 
effective and safe and we demand that companies not exploit the 
environment in pursuit of profits.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Kelly Vlahakis-Hanks and Earth 
Friendly Products as they celebrate this momentous anniversary.

                          ____________________




                        IN HONOR OF MARK MARINI

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN B. LARSON

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize 
Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5) Mark S. Marini, Sr. for his dedicated 
service to our Country, the United States Army, and the Connecticut 
National Guard.
  This week, Mr. Marini retires from the Connecticut Army National 
Guard after 42 years of uniformed service. For over four decades, Mr. 
Marini has served the State of Connecticut and our Country with the 
utmost dignity and respect, and it is my profound honor to recognize 
him as he retires this Thursday from his position as the Command Chief 
Warrant Officer of the Connecticut Army National Guard.
  CW5 Marini's accomplishments while serving at home and with his unit 
deployed into harm's way are extensive-his full engagement, leadership 
and contributions have had a significant and long lasting impact upon 
the numerous formations that make up our Connecticut National Guard. 
His dedication to his country, the National Guard, and the men and 
women of the state is unparalleled.
  I extend my deepest congratulations to CW5 Marini upon his 
retirement, and extend my appreciation to him for enduring so much for 
so long on our behalf.

                          ____________________




                   ISRAELI HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                              HON. TED POE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Israelis commemorated 
Holocaust Remembrance Day. Carrying out what they called their ``final 
solution'' to the ``Jewish problem,'' the Nazis gassed millions of Jews 
at Auschwitz, and then collected their corpses like waste to be burned 
in the camp.
  Mr. Speaker, this happened just 72 years ago, though many seem to 
forget. From the ashes of Auschwitz the Jewish people returned to their 
ancient homeland and established the sole democracy in the Middle East.
  Unfortunately, the Jewish people of Israel are again targets of 
elimination. Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and a growing list of others have 
openly called to ``eliminate'' the Jewish state and ``wipe it off the 
map.''
  We must honor the memories of the 6 million Jews murdered by the 
Nazis by vowing that Jews will never again stand alone before those 
seeking their extermination. The American people stand with Israel and 
with Jews everywhere remembering those that perished.
  We remember. And we vow: never again.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________




               HONORING THE CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SAM GRAVES

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I 
pause to thank and honor the Clay County Sheriff's Office for their 
efforts in serving Smithville following the March 6, 2017 tornado.
  The EF-2 rated tornado left a trail of destruction up to 1,000 feet 
wide and 18 miles long. In Smithville, over 60 houses were damaged with 
several completely destroyed, resulting in over 65 tons of debris. 
Miraculously, no injuries were sustained during the storm.
  After the storm, officers from the Clay County Sheriff's Office 
helped set up a perimeter, went door-to-door making sure residents were 
safe, and helped protect the neighborhood with a 24/7 presence in the 
days that followed. Their experience and training in emergency 
management was crucial as the city and residents began to put their 
lives back together. The effect of the Sheriff's Office on the 
neighborhoods affected by the tornado cannot be understated, whether 
through making the victims feel safe from scroungers or looters or by 
helping residents with their physical needs throughout the recovery.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me and the community of Smithville 
in thanking Sheriff Paul Vescovo and the officers and staff of the Clay 
County Sheriff's Office for their service following the March 6 tornado 
and wishing them God's blessings and protection in the years to come.

                          ____________________




    A BOW TO A LAWYER WITH APPEALING SKILLS--JOAN O'HARA JOINS VICE 
          PRESIDENT PENCE'S `RIGGEROUS' NATIONAL SECURITY CREW

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MICHAEL T. McCAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of gratitude for the 
service and friendship of Joan O'Hara--formerly my General Counsel for 
the House Homeland Security Committee--who now holds the post of Deputy 
National Security Advisor to Vice President Mike Pence.
  Joan would tell you she owes her professional success not to the 
Halls of Congress but to the sculls and shells of crew. In fact, the 
first 15 years of Joan's adult life were dedicated to competitive 
rowing--not law or politics. She approached rowing as she has since 
approached any obstacle or opportunity in her life: with genuine 
curiosity and an undeterrable will for success.
  Joan took up rowing in her senior year at Loyola College in Maryland. 
Shortly thereafter, she won a national championship in the single scull 
competition and was part of a winning team in a quad scull. The former 
is a testament to Joan's individual determination and perseverance, the 
latter--her leadership and teamwork. Both of these qualities have since 
expressed themselves explicitly in Joan's political career.
  After her own competitive career was over Joan coached rowing at the 
collegiate level. As a mentor to young women, she shared her personal 
experiences and insight to help others better themselves. Joan taught 
that it is not just the strength of one's back that contributes to 
rowing success but a cognizant awareness of the route to the finish 
line and humble understanding of what it takes to get there; and that 
when there are multiple people in the scull, it is not about how well 
any one person rows but how well they row as one.
  This same mentality has guided her political career. In 2007, Joan 
noticed a political fervor at the grassroots level that she had never 
seen before. With her interest sparked, she decided to pursue a law 
degree and career in public service. Similarly to rowing, Joan excelled 
at an impressive rate. She joined the Homeland Security Committee as a 
legal intern and was hired on as a counsel--quickly ascending to 
General Counsel.
  In her tenure as my General Counsel, she was a trusted advisor and 
close confidant. She positioned herself at the forefront of the 
encryption debate by drafting legislation to create a national 
commission to provide recommendations balancing privacy and security. 
She also played an integral part in facilitating the first 
congressional agreement to reauthorize the Department of Homeland 
Security.

[[Page 6044]]

  Joan's insight, professionalism, and leadership are missed as she 
departs this Committee. She will be an outstanding advisor to the Vice 
President, and I am excited to see what she makes of this new 
opportunity. It will be a pleasure to watch Joan as she once again 
embarks on a new adventure and accepts nothing less than excellence 
along her journey.

                          ____________________




  HONORING DOCUMENTED ORIGINAL TUSKEGEE AIRMAN WALTER K. ROBINSON, SR.

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of 
Representatives to join me in honoring the service of Documented 
Original Tuskegee Airman (DOTA) Walter K. Robinson, Sr. Tomorrow, I 
will welcome Mr. Robinson and his family to my office to celebrate his 
extraordinary service.
  Walter K. Robinson, Sr. was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1920, the 
second son of Dr. John C. Robinson and Mrs. Clara Denning Robinson. In 
1941, while attending Howard University in Washington, D.C., he 
volunteered for the Army Air Corps. He was sent to Camp Lee in 
Virginia, Keesler Field in Biloxi, Mississippi, and finally to Tuskegee 
Army Air Base in Tuskegee, Alabama. He began training at Tuskegee 
Institute for Basic Ground School, and after three months, continued in 
Pre-Flight, Primary, Basic, and Advanced Flight. During Primary 
Training, he had an accident in which he severed his Achilles tendon 
and was hospitalized for a year, enduring six operations and extensive 
physical therapy. When he was eventually able to return to full duty, 
he completed training, and while there, World War II ended. On November 
8, 1945, Mr. Robinson returned to civilian life, a few years after 
marrying his high school sweetheart, Edmonia Bailey.
  After his honorable discharge from the military, Mr. Robinson and his 
wife moved to Washington, D.C. in 1959. He worked for the U.S. Postal 
Service and retired after 35 years of service, rising through the ranks 
of the Post Office as Clerk, Station Manager and the second black 
Manager of Delivery and Collection for D.C. The Robinsons had one son, 
Walter K. Robinson, Jr. Sadly, Mr. Robinson's beloved wife, Edmonia 
Bailey Robinson, passed away in 2000, after 59 years of marriage. 
Today, Mr. Robinson still lives in Washington, D.C. and is a very 
active member of the East Coast Chapter of the Tuskegee Airmen (ECCTAI, 
Inc.). Members of ECCTAI and the Tuskegee Airmen were well-deserving of 
the Congressional Gold Medal they collectively received in March 2007. 
It is an honor to have a Tuskegee Airman still living in the District, 
and I very much look forward to meeting and welcoming him and his 
family to my office tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in honoring the service of 
Walter K. Robinson, Sr. and the extraordinary service and sacrifice 
also made by his brothers and sisters in World War II.

                          ____________________




         HONORING MICHAEL AND TABITHA MARQUARDT OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SCOTT PERRY

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I honor my constituents, Michael and 
Tabitha Marquardt, on his upcoming retirement after more than 20 years 
of service with the United States Navy.
  Michael's tireless dedication to duty, professionalism and sacrifice 
touched the lives of countless people and challenged all with whom he 
worked to be the best. His numerous commendations and awards, including 
the Marine Corps Achievement Medal, the Navy Good Conduct Medal, the 
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and several others, are a 
testament to his courage, work ethic and character. His enduring legacy 
of service to our Nation truly is commendable.
  Michael would be the first to admit, however, that his service at 
home and around the world--to include the Persian Gulf and Mexico--
would have been impossible without the sacrifice and service of his 
wife, Tabitha. Like thousands of other military spouses, her strength 
and perseverance played a critical role in our Nation's defense as she 
managed the family's affairs at home, which allowed Michael to focus on 
critical missions before him. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude for 
the service of our military families.
  On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I commend 
and congratulate Michael and Tabitha Marquardt upon his retirement and 
for their family's service to the United States of America.

                          ____________________




                      HONORING MILITARY ENLISTEES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. LOIS FRANKEL

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 67 high 
school seniors in Florida's 21st District who have decided to enlist in 
the United States Armed Forces.
  Of the 67 from my district, 25 have joined the Army; their names are 
the following: Amon King, Anne Kwarteng, Ola Selwyn-Dudoit, Nicole 
Thornton, Alejandro Abrego, Jonathan Abresch, Jordan Amoedo, Lashawndra 
Bryant, Calvin Castro, Emilio Constante, Jordan Edwards, Kamron Flar, 
Jameal Hutchinson, Dexter Knowles, Jorge Lopez, Kamaal Matthews, Skyler 
Podhurst, Widmania Registre, Aaron Rodriguez, Andrea Santana, Sameh 
Sedrak, Matthews Silva, Sabrina Silver, Greggory Westpfahl, and 
Nicholas Whittington.
  Twenty-seven have joined the Marines; their names are the following: 
Abbey Teitelbaum, Cherilyn Kranenberg, Kyran Russell, Erik Bruce, 
Daniel Mass, Cesar Bermudez, Ray Smith, Steele Holman, Ethan Brake, 
Climineda Charles, Clayton Shellard, Jake Sollecito, Michael Mero, 
Kaudriel Valce, Bernardo Rodriguez-Tomas, Manuel Reyes, Joel Pena, 
Raymond Findieson, Jaheym Hendrickson, Thai Tran, Jeremiah Brown, 
Lazaro Figuero, Kristiana Lombardi, Greson Ramos-Artiga, Ian Sorenson, 
Anthony Torres, and Jacob Smith-Mullaly.
  Two have joined the National Guard; their names are the following: 
Shelby Cochrane and Emilie Ortiz.
  Eight have joined the Navy; their names are the following: Jasmaine 
Oliver, Edwin Velazquez, Maxwell Mulford, Benjamin Johnson Jr., Myles 
Jackson, Kenny Zamor, Richneider Blaise, and Marjorie Galvez.
  Five have joined the Air Force; their names are the following: Dylan 
Delmastro, Anthony Camposeco, Roland Kupoluyi, Eric Reid, and Brian 
Blickle.
  It is in thanks to the dedication of patriots like these that we are 
able to meet here today, in the United States House of Representatives, 
and openly debate the best solutions to the diverse issues that 
confront our country. On behalf of myself and all of my constituents in 
Florida's 21st District, we thank them for their service, and wish them 
best of luck as they pursue this challenging endeavor.

                          ____________________




HONORING THE RETIREMENT OF JEFFERSON COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENT CAROLE 
                                A. McCOY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ELISE M. STEFANIK

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable woman 
who has shown strong dedication to serving New York's 21st District.
  Carole McCoy first came to Watertown, New York, in January 2007, when 
she was appointed as the fifth president of Jefferson Community 
College. During her ten years of service, Ms. McCoy has continually 
demonstrated her commitment to the students of the North Country. Under 
her leadership, the college saw the construction of a Collaborative 
Learning Center for the purpose of fostering academic curiosity and 
encouraging cooperation among students. Additionally, since 2007, 
enrollment at Jefferson Community College has increased by nearly 21 
percent, seven times the typical growth rate at community colleges 
across New York State.
  Ms. McCoy also received the 2016 ATHENA Award, which celebrates 
remarkable women as valued members and leaders of the community. She 
was recognized for professional excellence, providing valuable services 
to her community, and for supporting women to realize their potential.
  In the 21st District of New York, we are proud of Carole McCoy's 
commitment to service and academia, and we honor the legacy she will 
leave at Jefferson Community College.

[[Page 6045]]



                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent in the House 
chamber for roll call votes 222 and 223 Tuesday, April 25, 2017. Had I 
been present, I would have voted Yea on both

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN B. LARSON

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, I 
was not present for roll call vote 223. If I had been present for this 
vote, I would have voted: Yea on roll call vote 223.

                          ____________________




IN RECOGNITION OF THE LIFE AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF JUSTICE MICHAEL J. EAGEN

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MATT CARTWRIGHT

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Michael J. Eagen, 
former Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court whose life will 
be commemorated by the Lackawanna County Historical Society with a 
History Marker. A shrewd legal mind, Eagen was a celebrated force for 
change in the Pennsylvania justice system before his retirement in 
1980.
  Michael J. Eagen was born on May 9, 1907 and grew up in Jermyn, 
Pennsylvania. In 1927, Eagen graduated from St. Thomas College, today 
the University of Scranton. Eagen then enrolled at Harvard Law School. 
After one semester, he returned to Northeast Pennsylvania following the 
loss of a family business. Eagen later enrolled in a law course in 
Philadelphia and passed the bar exam to start practicing law.
  Eagen then set his sights on elected office and public service, 
beginning his illustrious judicial career. In 1933, at the age of 26, 
he was elected the youngest District Attorney in Lackawanna County. 
After two terms as DA, he became the youngest judge in Lackawanna 
County history at 34 years old. While on the bench, Eagen was outspoken 
against corruption, notably criticizing city police and Assistant City 
Solicitor Joseph V. Phillips in a 1943 case when a defendant claimed he 
was denied his right to testify.
  In 1959, Eagen joined the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In 1977, Eagen 
was named the Court's 38th Chief Justice. In his years on the Supreme 
Court, Eagen ordered a number of reforms to improve Pennsylvania's 
judicial system. Under his deft leadership, the Court was expanded, 
delays in resolving civil lawsuits were rectified and streamlined, and 
a system of accountability for judges was instituted requiring them to 
submit a monthly report on the status of their assigned cases.
  After an impressive 21-year career on Pennsylvania's highest court, 
Chief Justice Eagen retired from the bench in 1980. Eagen passed away 
in 1987 at 80 years of age, leaving behind an impressive legacy and a 
reformed Pennsylvania judicial system. It is an honor to recognize his 
many contributions to Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
Roll Call vote numbers 222 and 223. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on both.

                          ____________________




                        RECOGNIZING ADAM BLANKS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. KEN BUCK

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Adam Blanks for his 
hard work and dedication to the people of Colorado's Fourth District as 
an intern in my Washington, D.C. office for the Spring of 2017.
  The work of this young man has been exemplary, and I know he has a 
bright future. He served as a tour guide, interacted with constituents, 
and learned a great deal about our nation's legislative process. I was 
glad to be able to offer this educational opportunity, and look forward 
to seeing him build his career in public service.
  Adam plans to continue pursuing his degree at the end of this 
internship. I wish him the best as he pursues his career path. Mr. 
Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Adam Blanks for his service the 
last several months to the people of Colorado's 4th district.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. GWEN MOORE

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I missed Roll Call Vote 222 (H. Res. 187) and 
223 (H.R. 876). Had I been present, I would have voted YES on both.

                          ____________________




                      RECOGNIZING NOLAN HENDERSON

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE STIVERS

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Nolan Henderson, 
a true American hero and pillar of our community, who passed away 
earlier this month.
  Henderson was born and raised in Glenford, Ohio in Perry County. Soon 
after his graduation from Glenford High School, where he was part of 
the 1941 State Championship basketball team, he made the decision to 
join the Army.
  In the Army, Henderson served with the 101st Airborne ``Screaming 
Eagles'' Division as a paratrooper in the 907th Field Glider Artillery 
Battalion. He fought in the Normandy invasion on D-Day, and was awarded 
the Bronze Star, Distinguished Unit badge with 4 bronze stars, and the 
WWII Victory Medal. His Battalion would go on to become the most 
decorated Army division of WWII.
  After returning home, Henderson began a long career of serving the 
Glenford community. He served nearly 40 years as the Mayor of Glenford 
and 35 years as a rural carrier for the U.S. Postal Service. He was an 
active member of multiple community organizations, touching nearly 
every aspect of the community. This included time on the Northern Local 
School Board, the Glenford Lions Club, and the Shelly Park Board. He 
even served with the Hopewell Volunteer Fire Department.
  Throughout his life, there is no doubt of the impact he has had on 
our community and our nation. Thank you Nolan Henderson.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 222.

                          ____________________




        HONORING THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF UPLIFT FAMILY SERVICES

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. ZOE LOFGREN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend 
Uplift Family Services, the oldest charitable institution in Santa 
Clara County. Uplift Family Services, previously known as EMQFF, is a 
non-profit behavioral health organization for children and families and 
will celebrate its 150th anniversary this year. Today, Uplift Family 
Services is one of the largest family centered treatment programs in 
all of California; they serve 20,000 children in 30 different 
countries.
  Uplift Family Services, founded in 1867, evolved from an orphanage 
and Chinese rescue mission to California's largest, most comprehensive 
provider of behavioral health services for children and families. In 
fact, in 1994, Uplift Family Services became the first agency in 
California to launch an innovative program called Wraparound. That 
program, which delivers mental health and trauma related services to 
children and families, is now mandated in

[[Page 6046]]

every county in the State of California. Uplift Family Services and its 
directors have played a vital role in generating community awareness, 
and facilitating engagement for the communities they serve. In so 
doing, they assist individuals realize their hopes for behavioral 
health and emotional well-being.
  Uplift Family Services' three-part Crisis Continuum of Services serve 
an average of 200 youth per month and successfully divert 70 percent of 
the youth from hospitalization. In addition, Uplift Family Services 
provide Foster Care and Adoption Services to 26 counties in California. 
Uplift Family Services was awarded the 2016 Agency Community Hero Award 
by the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Board. Since its inception, 
Uplift Family Services has helped children and adolescents with complex 
behavioral challenges recover from trauma, cope with mental health 
disabilities, and lead happier and fuller lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Uplift Family 
Services, for its 150 years of service and advocacy to children and 
families in Santa Clara County.

                          ____________________




   IN RECOGNITION OF THE 85TH ANNIVERSARY OF HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE 
                          SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Horizon Blue 
Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey as it celebrates its 85th anniversary 
this year. Since its founding, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New 
Jersey has provided quality, accessible insurance to its customers. Its 
commitment to the service and benefit of its policyholders is truly 
deserving of this body's recognition.
  The oldest and largest health insurer in New Jersey, Horizon Blue 
Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey (Horizon) was established in 1932 as 
the Associated Hospitals of Essex County, Inc. and today serves more 
than 3.8 million residents. It is also New Jersey's largest Medicaid 
insurer, covering 841,000 patients. Additionally, Horizon provides a 
substantial impact on the economic growth of New Jersey as well as 
thousands of employment opportunities to New Jersey residents.
  Horizon strives to fulfill its mission of improving the well-being of 
its members and the overall health care industry through a 
comprehensive approach to medical care. In addition to its medical, 
dental and prescription insurance coverage, Horizon offers patient 
support programs, case management, around-the-clock medical advice and 
lifestyle wellness resources.
  Supporting local community organizations through the Horizon 
Foundation for New Jersey, Horizon aims to improve the health of 
individuals across New Jersey. Since its inception in 2004, the Horizon 
Foundation for New Jersey has given $47.8 million in grants to various 
organizations, including the YMCA and the Boys and Girls Clubs of New 
Jersey. Horizon's employee Horizon Cares program also provides hands-on 
volunteer assistance to neighborhoods across the state.
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in 
celebrating the 85th anniversary of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of 
New Jersey. The company continues to uphold its mission to providing 
outstanding services to its customers and New Jersey's communities.

                          ____________________




                 HONORING THOMAS KIBLER OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SCOTT PERRY

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I honor my constituent, Thomas Kibler, 
for his retirement after 26 years in local law enforcement.
  Mr. Kibler has served as a patrol officer and/or a criminal 
investigator with the Northern York County Regional Police, the North 
Middleton Township Police and finally with the Carroll Township Police. 
Mr. Kibler has earned numerous commendations and awards for his police 
work and also served our Nation honorably in the United States Army 
Reserve. He'll continue to serve our fellow citizens in a new role with 
the Pennsylvania Capitol Police.
  Mr. Kibler's tireless dedication, professionalism and sacrifice 
touched the lives of countless people and challenged all with whom he 
served to be the best. His legacy of service to our community truly is 
admirable.
  On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I commend 
and congratulate Thomas Kibler on his retirement from local law 
enforcement and wish him Godspeed in his future adventures.

                          ____________________




 INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL OFFICIALS RESIDENCY 
                        REQUIREMENT EQUALITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia 
Federal Officials Residency Requirement Equality Act, a bill that would 
amend federal law to require certain federal officials who serve the 
District of Columbia to actually live within its boundaries. In nearly 
every other jurisdiction in the United States, federal district court 
judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals are required by federal law 
to reside within the jurisdictions where they have been appointed--but 
these same officials appointed to serve the people of the District are 
not bound by these same requirements. Even in the territories that have 
such officials, the officials must live in those districts, other than 
the U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal appointed for the Northern Mariana 
Islands who at the same time are serving in the same capacity in 
another district. The only other exceptions exist for such officials 
appointed to the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District 
of New York, which are the only districts that serve different parts of 
the same city. My bill would put D.C. on equal footing with almost 
every other jurisdiction by ensuring that our Marshals, judges, and 
U.S. Attorney live among the residents they have been appointed to 
represent.
  Clearly, the idea that these federal officials ought to live in the 
jurisdictions they serve is a significant one--which is why the 
residency requirement for other jurisdictions is enshrined in federal 
law. Yet, D.C. was exempt from this requirement based on the now-
outdated notion that the District is too congested and small to house 
these appointed officials. The District is a vibrant and bustling city 
with a diverse populace who deserve direct engagement on the part of 
its federal judges, U.S. attorney, and Marshals. My bill recognizes the 
fact that D.C. deserves the same type of community involvement by these 
federal officials as nearly every jurisdiction.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING AND CELEBRATING THE BIRTHDAY OF BENJAMIN ``BEN'' MORRIS OF 
                        WESTMORELAND COUNTY, VA

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 
90th birthday of Benjamin ``Ben'' Morris of Westmoreland County, VA.
  Born on May 6, 1927, Ben would attend grade school at Oak Grove 
School for first through eleventh grade. Upon graduating in 1945, Ben 
enlisted in the United States Navy to serve in World War II.
  By the time Ben completed boot camp in Maryland, the war had ended 
but the mission to evade Japan was still to take place. He journeyed to 
California to board a troop ship that would travel to the Marshall 
Islands where he would board the USS Prairie. The USS Prairie traveled 
the seas of the Pacific, stopping at many islands, until it reached 
Tokyo, Japan. Ben recalls being amazed at the destruction of the city 
from the bombing that had occurred. After his naval tour of 15 months, 
he returned to his home in Montross, VA to begin working with his 
father at L.A. Clark Company, producing railroad ties.
  In 1950, Ben and his older brother built a lumber mill. He was 
married that year and him and his wife would have three boys and a 
daughter together. In 1951, Northern Neck Lumber, Inc. opened for 
business in Warsaw, VA. After his brother's death, Ben continued to run 
the business as President until 1995 when he retired. Ben's two sons 
continue to run the business today.
  Ben served on the Board of The Bank of Montross for 34 years until it 
was sold. Ben is a member of St. James Episcopal Church where he has 
served on the Vestry several times.
  Ben has enjoyed the pleasures of the Northern Neck: golfing, fishing, 
boating, and hunting. He is proud of his three children from his first 
marriage who have blessed him with nine

[[Page 6047]]

grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Ben and his current wife 
of 33 years live in Montross, and her two children and five 
grandchildren have been part of an ever growing family.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of knowing Ben for many years 
and am honored to recognize him and to celebrate his 90th birthday. On 
behalf the millions of Americans that he has selflessly served through 
his military service and service to his community, I thank him and wish 
him the happiest of birthdays.

                          ____________________




                      TRIBUTE TO COACH KEN SPARKS

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, many Tennesseans care about the 
Three ``F's'' in life: Faith, Family, and Football.
  One outstanding Tennessean in particular, Coach Ken Sparks, 
incorporated his love for all three of these into his amazing life.
  Ken Sparks devoted his life to his alma mater, Carson Newman 
University, as an inspirational coach for almost 40 years.
  While his record setting list of wins and accomplishments with his 
football teams might give someone else a big ego, Coach Sparks always 
kept the focus on someone else.
  I had the honor of celebrating his impact on my district, thousands 
of student athletes, and other coaches just a few months ago at his 
retirement ceremony.
  Coach Sparks spoke of success, wins, and achievements, but he did it 
while giving all the credit to the Lord. He spoke of his gratefulness 
to God through his amazing life experiences.
  The life that Ken lived was one that was devoted to building up the 
success of others while remaining humble through each level of success 
he achieved himself. He had an amazing ability to connect with players 
in a way that gave them purpose on and off the field.
  The love he had for his faith, family, and football were given deeper 
meaning with the devotion he had to his wife Carol, and their four 
children and 14 grandchildren.
  Even though he was diagnosed with cancer five years ago, he continued 
to work hard to bring glory to God.
  Although Tennesseans are greatly saddened by his loss, we should 
reflect on his life and the legacy he left behind.
  I encourage all my Colleagues and others to celebrate the amazing 
life of Coach Sparks.
  I would also like to call attention to the article that appeared in 
the Knoxville News Sentinel on March 31, 2017, entitled ``Ken Sparks, A 
Life Well Lived''.


        news sentinel editorial board, published march 31, 2017

       A wave of sadness washed over East Tennessee on Wednesday 
     with the word that Carson-Newman University football icon Ken 
     Sparks had succumbed to cancer.
       Carson-Newman and Sparks were inseparable, venerable 
     institutions.
       He had dedicated nearly four decades to shaping young men's 
     lives who played football for the university. That was more 
     important to him than any of the championships, the trophies, 
     the accolades, the numbers.
       ``I'm grateful to be part of a profession where you can 
     teach about life while you're teaching blocking and 
     tackling,'' Sparks said in 2010 when he was honored with the 
     Robert R. Neyland Trophy. ``The Lord has blessed me.
       ``I hope that through things like this I can honor the Lord 
     and that it has more meaning than what's on the scoreboard at 
     the end of the field.''
       Sparks, 73, a Knoxville native, retired after the 2016 
     season after courageously battling through his cancer 
     diagnosis in 2012.
       Polite, warm, always smiling, Sparks coached 37 seasons, 
     recorded 338 wins, made 25 playoff trips, won 21 South 
     Atlantic Conference titles and 5 national titles for the 
     university where he graduated in 1967. He coached in the 
     National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics and the 
     National Collegiate Athletics Association Division II as well 
     as at several high schools before returning to Carson-Newman 
     in 1980.
       In addition to the Neyland Trophy, Sparks has been honored 
     with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes Lifetime 
     Achievement Award. Sparks was elected president of the 
     American Football Coaches Association in 2007. In 2002 he 
     received the All-American Football Foundation's Johnny Vaught 
     Lifetime Achievement Award.
       Sparks earned NAIA coach of the year honors in 1984 and was 
     voted SAC coach of the year 12 times.
       A forgiving man, he gave troubled players who had lost 
     their way at other institutions a second chance.
       ``You're going to have influence, whether you like it or 
     not,'' Sparks said last November when he retired. ``Everyone 
     of us is an example of something. We can talk all we want to, 
     but our walk is what tells people who we are.
       ``The Lord has put us in a position where we've been able 
     to have an audience of players and people that want to know 
     the message. That's what I hope I've been true to, the Lord's 
     message.''
       When Sparks announced his retirement, Carson-Newman 
     athletics director Allen Morgan called it a sad day.
       ``It's a day we honor Ken and the legacy he is leaving for 
     how he has touched young men's lives in a way far greater 
     than wins on a football field.
       ``He has molded boys to become Christian young men, 
     husbands and community leaders where they too can give back. 
     So today, it's Ken Sparks' day. The entire Carson-Newman 
     community gives thanks for what he has done not only for 
     Carson-Newman but for the greater good of mankind.''

                          ____________________




                 HONORING MARLENE ``MARTI'' HOLLENBACK

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of 
Marlene ``Marti'' Hollenback, a resident of Spokane and owner of 
Dishman Dodge, a local car dealership. Marti passed away at the age of 
74 on April 15 after a short illness.
  Marti's influence in the Spokane community extends well beyond the 
car dealership family. She started her career as a registered nurse, 
spending 25 years working as the head nurse in pediatrics at Valley 
Hospital and ultimately the director of community programs for Empire 
Health Systems. In 1995, her father convinced her to join the family 
business at Dishman Dodge, where she was initially the general manager. 
Marti was passionate about the dealership, knew every employee by name, 
and made a point of attending employee recognition events.
  Marti also served on numerous community boards over the years, 
including Red Cross, Children's Home Society, Spokane Valley Community 
Center, Vanessa Behan Crisis Nursery and other business organizations. 
She was honored on several occasions and was a recipient of the 
Everyday Heart Award from Kiwanis in 2003. Her giving spirit was not 
only extended to these community boards, but also through philanthropic 
donations both personally and on behalf of the dealership, including a 
donated van to the Meals on Wheels program.
  Marti is survived by her four children and numerous grandchildren. 
She surely will be missed by them and the Spokane Community.

                          ____________________




                    HONORING CONGRESSMAN JAY DICKEY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. J. FRENCH HILL

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues today to honor the life 
and legacy of one of Arkansas's great leaders--Congressman Jay Dickey, 
who passed away last week after a battle with Parkinson's disease at 
the age of 77.
  Jay represented the 4th District of Arkansas after becoming the 
first-ever Republican to hold the seat.
  He was a great public servant who made many contributions to Arkansas 
and our Nation as a whole.
  I have always admired his irrepressible enthusiasm for lower Arkansas 
and his dedication to his constituents.
  We are all fortunate to have had someone with such a strong character 
be a leader for our state.
  Jay leaves behind a legacy of warmth and passion, and his 
contributions to the Natural State will continue to live on for 
generations to come.
  I extend my respect, affection and prayers to his family and loved 
ones.

                          ____________________




      IN RECOGNITION OF THE TRINITY CHRISTIAN ACADEMY OF CAPE COD

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM R. KEATING

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th 
Anniversary of the Trinity

[[Page 6048]]

Christian Academy of Cape Cod in Hyannis, Massachusetts.
  Originally established in January 1967 as the Trinity School of Cape 
Cod by a group of four ministers and three laymen, the Trinity 
Christian Academy of Cape Cod was created as a nonprofit independent 
school without affiliation to any church or denomination. The school 
was established for the purpose of providing a strong academic 
education centered in historic Christianity and founded on the basic 
tenets of the Bible.
  Trinity first opened its doors with a pre-school and kindergarten 
program in South Yarmouth using two buildings owned by the Evangelical 
Baptist Church. Since then, the school has moved to a new campus 
located on Mary Dunn Road in Barnstable. It has expanded to teach 
students all the way through high school, preparing them for higher 
education. Their current enrollment is 164 students, of which 53 
percent receive some level of financial aid. Further proving their 
dedication to academic excellence, 100 percent of Trinity Christian 
Academy of Cape Cod graduates are accepted into their college of 
choice.
  In addition to a strong academic program, the Trinity Christian 
Academy of Cape Cod's high school leadership development program guides 
their students to embrace the message of Christ in their daily lives 
and to go on and become influential and compassionate leaders. This 
program provides ample opportunity for students to reach out and serve 
those who are marginalized in their community resulting in empathetic 
leadership skills. Trinity students actively mentor elementary students 
at local public schools and have partnered with local daycares which 
service lower income families, providing Christmas gifts, activities, 
and story time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Trinity Christian Academy of 
Cape Cod on its 50th Anniversary. I ask that my colleagues join me in 
honoring the school's five decades of service and commitment to 
academic excellence and I look forward to seeing all that they are able 
to accomplish in the next 50 years.

                          ____________________




     IN RECOGNITION OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF BERGMANN'S CLEANING

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. BARBARA COMSTOCK

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to use this time to 
recognize a local business on its 100th year in operation. Bergmann's 
Cleaning, whose main plant is located in Virginia's 10th District in 
Sterling, Virginia, provides a variety of cleaning services and is one 
of the oldest family-operated businesses in our region. Now managed by 
fourth generation family members, Bergmann's Cleaning is truly a staple 
in our community and region, and I commend the Bergmann family on their 
exemplary business practices and ability to adapt and grow throughout 
the years.
  In 1917, W.C. Bergmann decided to supplement his income as a 
lamplighter in Washington, D.C. by starting a small laundry service, 
where he, with his horse drawn truck, would pick up the clothes of his 
customers, clean and press them, and then deliver them back to their 
homes. His services quickly gained recognition, and with the help of 
his sons, he opened the first Bergmann's Cleaning store within a year 
of starting the horse drawn truck business. The number of inner city 
stores increased, but many people were moving out to the suburbs of 
Washington, D.C. and also required new services. Accordingly, 
Bergmann's Cleaning not only continued their convenient and free pick-
up and delivery service, which garnered thousands of new customers in 
the D.C. suburbs, but also expanded its cleaning offerings to include 
clothing, rugs, draperies, linens and more.
  Today, Bergmann's Cleaning's day-to-day operations are managed by E. 
Peter Bergmann, the President, and Larry M. Bergmann Jr., the Vice 
President of Sales and Operations. Under their leadership, the company 
has 20 efficient delivery and pick-up routes, ranging from Reston, 
Virginia, to Columbia, Maryland, and has a staff of 125 people, many of 
whom are constituents of Virginia's 10th District. In addition to the 
successful door-to-door service, Bergmann's Cleaners serves more than 
25 hotels in our region, uses ecofriendly and biodegradable cleaning 
products, and is responsible for the most successful annual coat drive 
in the nation. In fact now in its 17th year, the annual ``Share the 
Warmth, Coats for Kids and the Needy'' drive has delivered nearly 
500,000 coats to those less fortunate.
  In today's society, family owned businesses are essential to the 
future of our nation. It is families, like the Bergmanns, who help 
foster strong local economies by establishing successful business 
practices that can be carried out for multiple generations. While the 
services provided have changed and expanded over the years, the 
entrepreneurial attitude of the Bergmann family and common goal of 
serving their community has remained the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Bergmann's 
Cleaning for its dedication to serving our community for 100 years. I 
wish E. Peter Bergmann, Larry M. Bergmann, Jr., and the entire company 
the best in their future endeavors.

                          ____________________




                  TRIBUTE TO HON. NELSON JAEGER BECKER

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TODD ROKITA

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a prominent Hoosier 
leader and my close friend, Mr. Nelson Jaeger Becker, who passed away 
on April 7, 2017 surrounded by his loving family.
  Nelson was born in Logansport, Indiana on September 16, 1940. He 
graduated from Logansport High School, received his Bachelor of 
Business Administration from Tulane University, and his Doctor of 
Jurisprudence from Tulane University Law School. He also graduated from 
the Culver Summer Naval School and served in the United States Air 
Force as a JAG officer where he attained the rank of captain.
  Nelson was passionate about the law, the legislative process, serving 
the community, and politics. He practiced law in Logansport from 1968 
up until his passing. He dutifully served the residents of Carroll and 
Cass Counties as their State Representative for over a decade in the 
Indiana House of Representatives. During that time, he served as 
Majority Whip and Speaker Pro Tempore. Nelson continued to serve the 
state legislature as a government affairs professional for several 
industries providing the part-time legislators with facts to help them 
make decisions on policy issues facing the General Assembly. Nelson's 
service to the great State of Indiana did not go unnoticed. He was a 
recipient of Indiana's highest civilian award, The Sagamore of the 
Wabash.
  Nelson truly cared about the City of Logansport and it showed through 
his actions. He was a former member of the Board of Directors of 
Logansport Savings Bank and the Board of Directors of the First 
National Bank of Logansport. He was also the former President of the 
Cass County YMCA Board of Directors and the United Fund Board of 
Directors and held memberships with the First United Methodist Church, 
the Elks, and American Legion.
  I had known Nelson for many years and always appreciated his advice 
and council on a variety of issues. Nelson was one of the very first 
people to support me in my bid for public service. And he was quite 
literally the first person to turn his verbal support into concrete 
action. I will never forget that . . . or the small group of Logansport 
leaders who met with me in Nelson's house one evening in 2001 to 
support my goals for public service.
  Nelson leaves Dixie, his beloved wife, five sons, and fifteen 
grandchildren to carry on his legacy of service to fellow Hoosiers. 
Anyone who knew him well knows what a great loss his passing is for our 
community and the State of Indiana. May he rest in peace, he will not 
be forgotten.

                          ____________________




      IN HONOR OF DEAN AND ANGIE WYSNER'S 50TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE ROGERS

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the House's attention 
to recognize the 50th wedding anniversary of Dean and Angie Wysner on 
May 5th.
  Dean and Angie met at Woodland High School and dated only a short 
time before he enlisted in the Army. Dean was assigned and stationed in 
California and they were married after he had been gone for a year.
  Dean and Angie have been blessed with three children: Deena, Chad and 
Lori. Additional blessings include their four grandchildren: Tanner, 
Abby, Brittany and Mason and great-grandchildren: Rayleigh, Kayleigh 
and AnaLeigh.

[[Page 6049]]

  Dean is the son of Moulton and Josie Wysner of Graham, Alabama and 
graduated from Woodland High School in 1964. He worked in manufacturing 
after high school and then served as a Military Police in the Army. 
After his service, he went back to manufacturing for a few short years 
until he became a self-employed farmer and has continued for 45 years. 
He has served with the Farmer's Federation for 18 years advocating for 
the family farm and also served as a Randolph County Commissioner.
  Angie is the daughter of Marvin and Earla Spradlin of Woodland, 
Alabama and graduated from Woodland High School in 1965. She worked in 
manufacturing after high school until having children and then working 
full-time on the family farm. Once the children had all graduated from 
high school, she began a career with the U.S. Postal Service as a Rural 
Letter Carrier which she continues today.
  Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the 50th wedding 
anniversary of my friends, Dean and Angie Wysner.

                          ____________________




                               ANZAC DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                              HON. TED POE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the anniversary of 
the ANZAC Day. On this day, 102 years ago, while horrific trench 
warfare was taking place in Europe, half a continent away, the 
Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, came together for a noble cause. 
Together they set out to capture the Dardanelles and Gallipoli to open 
a route for the allied navies.
  The combined forces were met by fierce resistance from the Ottoman 
Turks. What was originally intended to quickly eliminate Turkey from 
the war turned into a bloody, 8-month battle. More than 8,000 
Australians and 2,400 New Zealanders died in that campaign.
  The tragic losses of so many brave soldiers caused Australians and 
New Zealanders to remember the sacrifice of all those who died on ANZAC 
Day. On this national day of remembrance I am humbly inspired by how 
Australians show gratitude to their fallen warriors.
  Today I ask my colleagues to join our friends and allies, the Aussies 
and the Kiwis, across the sea, as they honor their fallen and reflect 
on the many different meanings of war.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________




              HONORING THE 52ND ANNIVERSARY OF HEAD START

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ELISE M. STEFANIK

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the 
Head Start organization on its 52nd Anniversary.
  Since its establishment, Head Start has been working to serve the 
country's most vulnerable families. In addition to working with 
organizations that provide learning, nutrition and general health 
assistance for children, Head Start has also helped to provide 
training, job development, and volunteer opportunities for low-income 
parents. These efforts are critical for establishing an environment in 
which every American is equipped to reach their full potential.
  In my district, the Warren County Head Start Center has strengthened 
our community by working with over 250 families to provide learning 
opportunities for children and parents alike. While focusing on early 
childhood development programs, these centers also offer assistance to 
parents seeking higher education, lessening their burden so that they 
may work towards a brighter future for their family.
  I would like to thank Head Start for 52 years of commitment to 
children and families across the country. In New York's 21st District, 
we are grateful for their work to make sure every child has the 
opportunity to succeed. I wish Head Start a prosperous future and I am 
confident that it will continue making a positive impact on the lives 
of many Americans.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. LOIS FRANKEL

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on roll call vote 222 and 223, I 
was not present because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``AYE.''

                          ____________________




                  HONORING ERIC STILES OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SCOTT PERRY

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I honor my constituent, Eric Stiles, 
for earning a 2017 Governor's Victim Service Pathfinder Award, 
Pennsylvania's most prestigious award for a victim service professional 
or program.
  Mr. Stiles is a sexual assault survivor who has devoted his career to 
advocacy and activism on behalf of others. At the National Sexual 
Violence Resource Center, Mr. Stiles has helped to develop best 
practices in sexual violence intervention and prevention. He's led 
efforts to support sexual violence victims at all stages of life. His 
colleagues rave about a man who they say ``. . . leads with passion and 
heart for the work, which only grows with his visionary ideas and 
creative outlets for engaging others,'' and who ``. . . has an uncanny 
knack for helping people to move and grow into a better version of 
themselves.''
  As a member of the House Victims' Rights Caucus, and simply as a 
person who empathizes with and prays for the plight of sexual violence 
victims, I'm truly moved by Mr. Stiles' strength and compassion. His 
dedication has touched the lives of countless people and his legacy of 
service to others is exceptional.

                          ____________________




 INTRODUCTION OF THE LOW-WAGE FEDERAL CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE BACK PAY ACT 
                                OF 2017

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Low-Wage Federal 
Contractor Back Pay Act of 2017, to grant back pay to federally 
contracted retail, food, custodial and security service workers who may 
be furloughed if there is a federal government shutdown this fiscal 
year. The bill would apply to all three branches of the federal 
government. The idea for the bill was brought to my attention by 
federally contracted service workers, some of whom work here on the 
Capitol grounds providing Members of Congress and congressional staff 
with daily services, in 2013 when the federal government shut down.
  Many federally contracted workers in federal agencies earn little 
more than the minimum wage with few, if any benefits, and while others 
are unionized with a little better wage, all are the lowest paid 
workers in the federal government and should not be punished because 
Congress fails to do its job and keep the government functioning. 
Congress has historically provided back pay to federal employees, who 
work in the same buildings as these low-wage service workers, 
furloughed during government shutdowns--but not low-wage contract 
workers. However, both groups of workers deserve to be made whole after 
these shutdowns. I recognize, of course, that contract workers are 
employees of contractors, but the distinction between federal workers 
and at least the lowest-paid service workers who serve the federal 
government and its employees and keep, for example, their premises 
clean, fails when it comes to a deliberate government shutdown. Unlike 
many other contractors, those who employ low-wage service workers have 
little latitude to help make up for lost wages. Low-wage federally 
contracted service workers could least afford the loss of pay during a 
shutdown, and should not have to go to work every day with everyone 
else in their federal buildings likely receiving back pay except for 
them.
  The nation's capital is the high-profile home of the federal 
government's collusion with contractors that pay low wages through 
leases and contracts with federal agencies. At least this legislation 
would provide some parity to their low-wage federal contractor workers.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

                          ____________________




 CELEBRATING MARK! LOPEZ, RECIPIENT OF THE 2017 GOLDMAN ENVIRONMENTAL 
                                 PRIZE

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 26, 2017

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate mark! 
Lopez, a tireless environmental advocate and the executive director of 
East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, on his receipt of this 
year's

[[Page 6050]]

Goldman Environmental Prize for North America. mark! has played an 
integral role in the fight to test and clean up the contaminated homes 
of families living near the former Exide battery recycling plant, which 
is situated in my 40th Congressional District. Though mark! is just 32 
years old, his activism and passion have already made a clear and 
positive mark on our community, richly deserving of this global 
recognition.
  mark! was born to a family of activists, and was raised in the midst 
of the activities of Madres del Este de Los Angeles Santa Isabel 
(Mothers of East LA Santa Isabel), an organization cofounded by his 
grandparents, my good friends Juana Beatriz Gutierrez and Ricardo 
Gutierrez, and continued by his mother, Elsa Lopez. Protesting and 
organizing were familiar sights to him from an early age, and during 
his years as an environmental studies major at UC Santa Cruz, he showed 
his commitment to this family tradition as a community organizer and 
activist for the needs of minority students and service workers. His 
dedication to advocacy and the environment foreshadowed his work in the 
fight to close the Exide plant and clean up the polluted lands 
surrounding the facility.
  Exide finally agreed to shut down this plant in 2015, but properties 
for miles around remained contaminated with high levels of lead and 
arsenic. The work of mark! and his colleagues at East Yard Communities 
for Environmental Justice was invaluable in compelling the California 
Department of Toxic Substances Control to expand its testing of 
properties around the plant, and in helping secure a state commitment 
of $176.6 million to test and clean up contaminated homes.
  All families, regardless of their background, regardless of their 
neighborhood, deserve to raise their loved ones in a safe and clean 
environment. Activists like mark! Lopez not only help to make that goal 
a reality, they inspire other citizens to act through their example. As 
testing and cleanup efforts around Exide continue, I have no doubt that 
mark! will be at the forefront of the fight to support and protect 
families imperiled by this terrible contamination, and to ensure a 
pristine environment for all.
  Mr. Speaker, as mark! Lopez is honored with the Goldman Environmental 
Prize, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in commending him on 
receiving this prestigious award and in saluting his commitment to 
environmental justice.

                          ____________________




                       SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

  Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate of February 
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized 
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees, 
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This 
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate 
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place and 
purpose of the meetings, when scheduled and any cancellations or 
changes in the meetings as they occur.
  As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this 
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this 
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the 
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
  Meetings scheduled for Thursday, April 27, 2017 may be found in the 
Daily Digest of today's Record.

                           MEETINGS SCHEDULED

                                 MAY 2

     10 a.m.
       Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
         To hold hearings to examine the United States-European 
           Union covered agreement.
                                                            SD-538
       Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
         To hold an oversight hearing to examine federal payments 
           to local governments provided through the Secure Rural 
           Schools and Community Self Determination Act and the 
           Payment in Lieu of Taxes program and the need to 
           provide greater fiscal certainty for resource-dependent 
           communities with tax-exempt federal lands.
                                                            SD-366
       Committee on Foreign Relations
         To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Terry 
           Branstad, of Iowa, to be Ambassador to the People's 
           Republic of China, Department of State.
                                                            SD-419
     10:30 a.m.
       Committee on the Judiciary
         To hold hearings to examine responses to the increase in 
           religious hate crimes.
                                                            SD-226
     2:30 p.m.
       Committee on Appropriations
       Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, 
           and Related Agencies
         To hold hearings to examine United States European 
           Command, focusing on theater assessment and European 
           Reassurance Initiative (ERI) progress; to be 
           immediately followed by a closed hearing in SVC-217.
                                                            SD-124

                                 MAY 3
     10 a.m.
       Committee on Armed Services
       Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
         To hold hearings to examine Department of Defense 
           laboratories and their contributions to military 
           operations and readiness.
                                                            SR-222
       Committee on Foreign Relations
       Subcommittee on Multilateral International Development, 
           Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic, 
           Energy, and Environmental Policy
         To hold hearings to examine global philanthropy and 
           remittances and international development.
                                                            SD-419
     10:30 a.m.
       Committee on Appropriations
       Subcommittee on Department of Defense
         To hold hearings to examine defense innovation and 
           research funding.
                                                            SD-192
       Committee on the Budget
         To hold hearings to examine the economy and private 
           sector growth.
                                                            SD-608

                                 MAY 4

     9:30 a.m.
       Committee on Armed Services
         To hold hearings to examine United States Special 
           Operations Command.
                                                            SD-G50
     10 a.m.
       Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
         To hold hearings to examine the threat posed by 
           electromagnetic pulse and policy options to protect 
           energy infrastructure and to improve capabilities for 
           adequate system restoration.
                                                            SD-366
     2:30 p.m.
       Committee on Armed Services
       Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
         To hold hearings to examine ballistic missile defense 
           policies and programs.
                                                           SR-232A

                                 MAY 8

     2:30 p.m.
       Committee on the Judiciary
       Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
         To hold hearings to examine Russian interference in the 
           2016 United States election.
                                                            SD-226

                                 MAY 10

     2:30 p.m.
       Committee on Indian Affairs
         To hold hearings to examine S. 772, to amend the PROTECT 
           Act to make Indian tribes eligible for AMBER Alert 
           grants, and S. 825, to provide for the conveyance of 
           certain property to the Southeast Alaska Regional 
           Health Consortium located in Sitka, Alaska.
                                                            SD-628
       Special Committee on Aging
         To hold hearings to examine aging with community, 
           focusing on building connections that last a lifetime.
                                                            SD-562