iais. it develops international insurance regulations for 190 jurisdictions and in more than 140 countries to then adopt those. i am concerned this could replace the state-based insurance regulatory model with international standards that were created by unselected european bureaucrats. our states as justice brandeis coined, laboratories of democracy and in his words that a state may if the citizens choose serve as a laboratory and try ideas without risks. i can't think of a better experiment than the state-based insurance regulatory system. that's why the protections provided in the transparent insurance standards act are so vitally important. the straightforward bill simply gives the states and congress the opportunity to comment on any international insurance standard before it may be adopted.

and i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this very, very important bill and support our system that has existed for 150 years. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. ms. waters: i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from washington, a member of the financial services committee, mr. heck. . thank you, mr. speaker. mr. heck: first i'd like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from new york and the other gentleman from texas, regarding our colleague, mr. neugebauer, from the day that i walked into this chamber, he has been nothing but a paragon of gentlemanness toward myself and my colleagues. in fact, every freshman receives a flag flown over the capital that congressman neugebauer has had flown. wouldn't a you know it, small world category, 2,000 miles away, he happened to be good friends with my uncle, which i didn't even know, until i arrived here. he will be missed.

he's a testament to how you can see the world completely differently and yet be able to treat one another with respect. i'm a little uncomfortable because this is the second time in a week i've risen to oppose a proposal by my friend from missouri who i think actually is trying to do the right thing and with whom i have dealt in good faith and who has dealt in good faith with us. but i do rise to oppose this bail because in some cases it goes too far. in some cases it won't work and in some cases it doesn't go far enough. it goes too far in terms of stealing the money from the s.e.c. reserve to pay for this. its cost and those associated with its implementation should not be borne by another enforcement agency whose job it is to keep us safe. it won't work in terms of its requirements -- reporting requirements, all these expensive requirements that require the rate on the s.e.c., the transparency, the reporting. anybody who knows anything about negotiations knows you

can't post a public notice about what you intend to do and hope to be successful on the outcome. i happen to have been a professional on both sides of the labor management negotiations table and i can tell you, the last thing in the world you want to do is post your playbook. that would be a little bit like the football team saying, come here, defense, let me tell what you we're going to do, and that would in fact be the net effect of this particular approach. the objective to maintain the integrity of the mccarran-ferguson act -- mccarran-ferguson act is the right is the right one. in some cases it doesn't go far enough. the truth is, we ought to have these international discussions and negotiations for international firms. but this bill would only apply to the iaif. there are a lot of international forums where insurance is at the table. the fact of the matter is, the state regulators ought to be at those tables as well. look, there's a better way. i offer it to you. it is a bill i've introduced, which is h.r. 6436.

it takes a principle-based approach. it merely says, the insurance regulators got to be at the table, the state based insurance regulators got to be at the table. and we have to protect that system. it's a principle base. not top-down, command and control, heavy bureaucracy approach to achieving the same objective, while at the same time ensuring that we provide adequate protection and regulation for international insurance companies. but respecting the state-based system. i don't know why we can't get to win-win here. i find it ironic that my legislation, 6436 actually enjoys broad-based support among the stakeholders. the regulated and, yes, the regulators. the state-based insurance regulators believe that this is the best approach to take. and it's the one i think is a win-win for everybody. it achieves everybody's objectives. that's not what 5143 will do.

54 -- 5143, i'll get there yet, goes too far in some cases, won't work in others, and doesn't go far enough in others. so i hope that you will reject it. provide us with an opportunity to continue to negotiate in good faith, and get to win-win. because win-win is possible in this circumstance. with that i yield back the balance of my time. and once again thank the ranking member very much for this opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. with that i recognize the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, who is chairman of the oversight committee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman luetkemeyer for all his work on this bill, h.r. 5143. i just -- as we enter into this debate, i think it's important o look at who supports what.

you look at state insurers, insurers in states like wisconsin, they've look at mr. luetkemeyer's bill and they love it. they think it's a great bill. because it protects the american state-based model. if you're a large global insurer, you don't like this bill. because you want one global international standard that you have to comply with. so we're here fighting for the little guy, those little insurance companies that dot all of our states that serve our communities and our families and the opposition standing with the large insurers who have been more concerned about this bill than the little guy. which goes to my point. i'm concerned that the federal reserve and treasury could enter into an international framework that undermines the u.s. system in favor of, again, this europe-centric model that's inconsist went our american model. if you look at this great american model, it's worked for 150 years.

look back to the 2008 crisis. this system in america, with a ton of pressure, it performed beautifully. it did really well. why do we want to cash that in for a different model? i guess my concern is that those state insurers, like in my state, they're not even regulated at the federal level, but they're concerned that on the track that we're going, they very well may be. this is pretty simple stuff. what mr. luetkemeyer's looking for is openness and transparency. he just doesn't want washington bureaucrats negotiating a deal. he wants all stakeholders as part of this deal. and lo and behold, it's a remarkable concept, but if we're going to have fundamental changes to our insurance law, why only have unelected bureaucrats make those decisions, why not empower the congress, the people who are responsive to the american electorate, we should have a say in this process, put us back in control, which is

exactly what chairman luetkemeyer does. great bill, i encourage all of my friendses on both sides of the aisle to give -- friends on both sides of the aisle to give a rounding set of support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. with that i recognize the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from missouri for his work on h.r. 5143. i rise in strong support of the legislation. now, what we're hearing on the floor today is very similar i suspect, to the -- similar, i suspect, to the discussion at the founding of this country. yet some who wanted a strong central government, strong regulating powers from washington, and some who said, no, that will not be the best way to provide a strong economy, that we should send --

we should send the decisions closer to where people live. frankly, that decision -- that choice is being played out worldwide right now. and that's the case with the question in front of us. should we allow people in europe to tell us what our markets will look like here? now, there are those who say yes. i'm in the group that says no. because our system here has , in ed its own stability the financial difficulties of 2008 and 2009, our market performed just perfectly. we've got 56 different regulators, each one has their own responsibility. it provides a safer market for the consumer, it provides a safer product for the consumers to purchase. now, why we would send that authority to some other country across the oceans just never made sense to those of us who want the decision making closer to the people. secondly, we have to think that

it is good for american jobs. any time people in a different country are deciding what the rules are, they're going to skew it in favor of themselves. again, our market is well diversified, it's spread among the stated islamic states, and -- states, and it provides insurance markets for every individual state, and some more than just the one, so that tells us that it's good for the economy, it's good for the consumer. finally, we need this stabilizing force here. the ability for americans to determine what we're going to do. i think that the recent election has been maybe a referendum on, do we want to give up power to the local people, or do we just send it away? mr. luetkemeyer's bill reserves power for the people, it preserves -- preserves power for the people, it preserves power for the congress, i urge support for mr. luetkemeyer's bill, h.r. 5143, and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. with that we will recognize the gentlelady from missouri, my colleague, mrs. wagner, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm proud to co-sponsor h.r. 5143, the transparent insurance standards act of 2016. with my good friend and colleague from the state of missouri, representative luetkemeyer. dodd-frank reversed a nearly 100--- 150-year precedent of the u.s. insurance industry being regulated primarily by the state. from property casualty, live, reinsurance, health, and even auto, the obama administration and dodd-frank created a morin vasive role for the federal -- smor invasive role for the federal government to sbe -- more invasive role for the

federal government to interfere in this. our foreign counterparts, particularly in the european union, are trying to force us to adopt their standard and forego our state-based insurance regime. most concerning is that many of these meetings take place behind closed doors, with little accountability or transparency. while our federal government says they are negotiating on behalf of our best interests. h.r. 5143 would enhance congressional oversight into these deliberations by establishing requirements to be met before the federal government can agree to the adoption of any final international insurance standards or covered agreements. setting these procedures in place ensures that missouri policyholders and customers will be protected from premium increases by having to adopt international standards that don't apply or make sense here

in the united states. americans are tired, sick and tired of the federal government making choices on their behalf without proper input and oversight. congress needs to be more involved in these negotiations that could have substantial impacts on policyholders across the country. i have two letters of support from companies in missouri that represent over 40,000 customers and employees in the state. and the companies -- companies say the islamic state that this bill will help -- state that this bill will help prevent costs from going up in missouri. i'd like to submit this for the record. with that i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense piece of legislation that instills transparency and accountability for our government when negotiating with their foreign counterparts. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: mr. speaker, can i inquire as to how much time is left on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from california has 12 minutes remaining. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you very much. with that, mr. speaker, i would like to yield to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr, 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. barr: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for you and your staff, fored hard work that went into -- for the hard work that went into crafting this legislation, coordinating with the insurance industry, diverse stakeholders and consumers. mr. speaker, for about 150 years the american insurance industry has been regulated at the state level. this has enabled the tailoring of regulations and business models to local circumstances. for insurance companies of all types, structures and sizes.

this system has provided our domestic insurance industry a competitive advantage that benefits consumers and the market for ensuring against risk. it is a superior model to the concentrated national champion insurance models of europe. some of dodd-frank's policies threaten to up-end this existing regulatory infrastructure, by interjecting the federal government and ultimately international regulators into the oversight of the american insurance industry. . we rdless of one's views, should have government in stake in this process andin engage in obust oversight of any standard. the bill does just that. the legislation sets clear object vetsors rules of the road for the federal insurance office and the federal reserve that must be met during

negotiation and ultimately adoption of any international insurance standards or covered agreements. the bill ensures that state insurance commissioners or their designees are directly involved in the negotiation process, and before adoption of such an international standard, the public and congress must have access to the final text and the opportunity to provide comments. f.i.o. and the fed would be required to file reports and come to congress twice a year to brief us on the progress and implementation. if the standards include capital requirements, the fed must have promulgated a domestic standard first, and this will prevent the tail wagging of the dog that we have seen with other international financial standards. these reforms and several other provisions ensure that if the united states is going down the road of federal and international insurance standards, the process is transparent and congress, the states and the american people have a say in that process. and for these reasons i'm a proud co-sponsor of this legislation, and i urge its passage.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. believe this is our last speaker, and with that but not least we have a distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. williams, an entrepreneur who understands the importance of our free enterprise system and how important it is for this insurance industry to protect the interests of the free enterprise folks. i yield to him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. williams mr. speaker, i think by -- mr. williams: mr. speaker, i think that the dodd-frank act has been a complete failure. for the last six years in an effort to protect consumers, the dodd-frank act has stiffles job creation for millions of americans with regulation after regulation. .r. 5043, which i am a proud

co-sponsor of, aims to roll back many of the consequences forced upon u.s. insurers. the state-based model, the american model has been successful because it focuses on one thing -- the consumer. the u.s. state-based insurance regulatory system is unmatched by any regulatory system in the world. it's important that u.s. insurers are not put at a competitive disadvantage worldwide, and we continue to act in their interest. h.r. 5143 requires congress to conduct oversight of international conversations focused on insurance standards and establish a series of requirements to be met by our top negotiators at treasury's federal insurance office. furthermore, transparency and accountability is often lacking in international regulatory discussions. something that is fundamental to the state-based system. it is important that congress takes every opportunity to open doors, not close doors, and allows all interested parties to participate in negotiations with our international counterparts. mr. chairman, this legislation

will increase transparency and information sharing and bring to light the true objectives. just as congress is routinely involved in international trade negotiations, this should be no different. it is important we work cooperatively and only agree to standards and agreements there benefit u.s. consumers -- that benefit u.s. consumers and gives us a strong marketplace. i want to thank chairman luetkemeyer and the work our committee has done to stand up for u.s. insurers and consumers, and i strongly urge passage of this bill. in god we trust, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized to close general debate for the minority. ms. waters: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i have no further requests for time. and i'm prepared to close, and i will yield myself the emainder of my time. the gentleman who just gave testimony indicated that the secret is out.

i don't think he described the secret accurately, but let me just say it is out, and just as mr. hensarling said on the floor the other day, we ain't seen nothing yet. they're out to destroy dodd-frank. they're out to destroy the consumer financial protection bureau, and they keep coming forward as they're doing today to protect wall street. and so i ask my colleagues to consider the great progress we have made since the enactment of wall street reform to fix the blind spots that prevented our regulators from seeing the big picture. our u.s. financial system is increasingly complex, and the regulatory structure for the oversight of our system was fragmented before the financial crisis. this was particularly true of the insurance industry, which is regulated primarily by the states. and while our state-based

system for insurance regulation has many strengths, by its very nature it's ill-suited to address all of the issues related to large globally active insurance companies. that is why dodd-frank, while continuing to recognize the premise of state-based regulation, changed many of the ways in which the insurance industry is supervised for consolidated supervision and enhanced regulation. if we take a look at a.i.g., of course, one cannot help but ask, which state regulated a.i.g., and why did we get into the problem we did with a.i.g.? it's because of its london-based operation. that is why it is so important to have cooperation between the countries on these big insurance companies that are operating all over the world.

so let's remind everyone what this bill really does. it takes us backwards. it says, forget about examining systemic risk across jurisdictions, and instead, let's continue to leave the largest internationally active insure urs in the world off the hook for any risk -- insurers in the world off the hook for any risk. not the small domestic insurers that engage in traditional activities, not the companies that make up such an important part of our economy in rural areas and certainly not the insurers that had absolutely nothing to do with the financial crisis. we're talking about the biggest and most complex insurers that have operations all over the globe and pose risk to international financial stability. this bill is not about transparency as its title would suggest. it is about weakening oversight

of these large firms and making it virtually impossible to agree to any kind of international insurance standard. this bill is also not about protecting policyholders. it is about burying our head in the sand and going back to the precrisis days where all of us, including policyholders, were vulnerable to a systemic failure. so let's call this bill what it is. it is a giveaway to the insurance industry that is trying to escape more oversight, and let's not pretend that this bill would ensure a more unified posture on the international stage. because under the provisions of this bill, the u.s. will be severely crippled in its ability to negotiate on these issues which means that the rest of the world will move forward while american interests get left behind. what are we talking about?

we're talking about capitalization, and if we're not willing to engage with other countries in this international community about these big insurance companies that are operating all over the world about capital standards, we're putting our own country at risk. the administration has already issued a strong veto threat for all of these reasons, and for these reasons i urge colleagues to vote no on this bill. let me share with you exactly what the administration is aying. the restrictiones that this legislation seeks to place on the united states representatives in international insurance matters under 5143 would raise serious constitutional concerns and severely outweigh any potential

intended benefits. they go on to say f.i.o., the federal reserve and state insurance commission remembers all actively engaged at the aias and regularly coordinate with one another, ensuring all aspect of the united states regulatory regime is adequately represented in any international negotiation. despite their effective coordination and extensive work thus far to improve global insurance regulation, the restrictions which h.r. 5143 seeks to impose would stop this work in its tracks and would put in place curversome and counterproductive -- cumbersome and counterproductive requirements. quote, because this bill seeks to tie the hands of u.s. representatives in an unconstitutional manner and prevent them from effectively negotiating on international insurance matters, the

administration strongly opposes h.r. 5143. and so, ladies and gentlemen, despite the fact that my colleague, the chairman of the financial services committee, promised me and threatened me and others that we ain't seen nothing yet, i think it's very clear about what is happening on the opposite side of the aisle and how mr. hensarling nd the committee are already carrying out the trump agenda. they're making sure that before we leave here on break, everyone understands that they're not about to support dodd-frank in any shape, form or fashion but rather, they're going to take every opportunity

to undermine dodd-frank because they don't believe in reforming wall street. mr. trump said that he was running for the united states president because he wanted to drain the swamp. but mr. trump and his leadership is already showing us that they intend to expand the swamp, that they're going to grow the swamp, that they're going to make sure that they have everybody from wall street, many of whom have already been fined, been accused of fraud, who are under investigation, somehow he's bringing them close to him and i wonder why. well, this legislation today basically tells you a story. it tells you a story that they're talking about, they're saying in essence that we, the united states of america, operate onto ourselves. yes, we have these big firms

and we don't mind they have big businesses in other countries like a.i.g. we don't mind that they're operating internationally. we have state regulations, and our state regulations will take care of whatever our needs are for oversight of insurance. but they can't tell you why that didn't happen with a.i.g. as a matter of fact, they don't mention a.i.g. they wish the story of a.i.g. would just simply go away. they don't want the american people to remind -- be reminded of what happened with a.i.g. that almost brought this country to its knees. they don't want to remind the people that we had to bail them out. they don't want to remind the people that they were undercapitalized, their credit default swaps were fraudulent. they didn't have anything to back it up, and so here we are, and they're asking the american people to ignore all of this,

just forget all of this. we're out to protect those who certainly should not be protected. with that, mr. speaker and members, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized to close debate for the majority. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield the balance of the time to myself. just to recap what we're doing here. you know, we have a bill in front of us that is basically trying to give leverage to team u.s.a., which are the representatives from the united states, one of which was created by dodd-frank, to represent the united states insurance industry at the negotiating table with regards to the international association of insurance supervisors. now, this is a group of people from around the world that regulate insurance companies in each of these other countries. now, these regulators have darren set of rules and

regulations from -- have a different set of rules and regulations from the standpoint they regulate insurance at the national level in each country but we regulate insurance at the state level. a.i.s., ational, the it's kind of lying putting a square peg in a round hole when they put those regulations on our companies here. as a result, this bill is to try and give leverage to our negotiations so that doesn't happen, so they can protect our industry and in fact the negotiators want this bill because they need that leverage to be able to go and say, no, some of the standards that are proposed, being proposed so they can protect the industry. . i'll give you a quick example. in my own state i have a company that provides reinsurance for a state in europe. that country right now is trying to impose new standards on that company to be able to

do business there. we need to have the regulators be able to go to the i.a.s. and say, look, this is not working, you cannot impact and undermine our own companies in this country with these rules that do not work. they need to be on a level playing field with everybody else. so this is a way that we can protect our companies and our industries and our consumers from this regulation that will -- is basically out of control sometimes. mr. huizenga made a great point. he said, why would we allow unelected foreign regulators to tell our industry what to do? that's what we've got. we've got a group of bureaucrats from around the world who are trying to tell our companies, our insurance industry, it isn't one company, the everybody in this country, what to do. they're not elected, but we are in this congress. shouldn't we put people's representative in charge of this? mr. pearce made that comment, these regulations need to be decided by the people. the representatives. that's us.

that's what this bill does. puts us in charge of saying yes or no to whatever agreements are done over there. mr. barr made the comment that we need to protect the business model of our insurance industry. that's what this does. we in the congress can look and see if these rules and regulations will protect our industry. it doesn't mean we throw them all out either. the underlying principle of everything that the minority -- ranking member's talking about here is that we're going to throw out every regulation that's being proposed. no, that's not the case. what we want to do is make sure that the ones that are proposed are ok and will not negatively impact our industry. the ones that are going to be helpful, we'll support those. we'll let them go through. that's up to congress to make that decision. we should be in charge of those decisions, not somebody else around this world. mr. williams made a good point, he said, this is kind of like a trade agreement. we approve all the trade agreements in the other body. shouldn't we approve an agreement like this, where

you're going to impact an entire industry? i think so, mr. speaker. let me just move on to a couple points that were made by a couple of folks during the discussion on the other side. they talked about the pay-for in the bill. the pay-for in the bill actually comes exr a -- comes from a slush fund of the s.e.c. which is overfunded at this point and they don't even use -- they're going to use less than 20% of the money this year. the well paid for. the well -- it's well paid for. it's well within the reason of being able to afford this. the not going to impact that regulator at -- it's not going to impact that regulator at all. someone made the comment the fed does not have the authority to make these rules -- the fed does have the authority to make these rules and regulations, no, they don't. they don't have authority to make a rule across the board on all insurance companies in this country. hat is not a true statement. a statement was also made about the g-sifis. this bill doesn't do anything

to address the g-sifi designation. this bill is about protecting the iais which is a supervisory body. it's not the international board that decides all of these different g-sifi designations. this is a board that oversees the regulatory structure of insurance companies. somebody said it has constitutional concerns. if it has constitutional concerns, then you've just told me that dodd-frank is unconstitutional. because that's what we're doing is dealing with what's gone on in dodd-frank when setting up the office to try to give them the leverage and power they need to do something. you know, it's interesting, because the ranking member last week was railing on a bill that we had on the floor about transparency and oversight of regulators. we less understand to her. this bill does -- we listened to her. this bill today does the same thing. we're providing oversight for the regulators. i would think she'd be excited

about this legislation and be willing to support it. one or comment, mr. chairman, and then i'll close. the ranking member keeps throwing a.i.g. over here at us. that is a red herring from the standpoint that a.i.g. has made -- is made up of two separate entities. one is the shurents company, one is the -- insurance company, one is the securities and investment company. the company that was in trouble was the securities and investment part. the insurance company stayed solid and solvent. that's not the one that was bailed out. so again, the point was made by one much my colleagues about -- mr. duffy, i believe it was, that in 2008 our system worked. he's correct. it did work. our insurance industry in this country withstood one of the largest and most devastating recessions in history since the great depression and it came out of it with very little negative problems that could impact the quality of insurance being provided for our citizens. so, mr. speaker, let me just close by saying this bill does

what we would hope that every bill would do in this conference and that it gives leverage to people who can do good to protect our industries and our people, our way of life and our economy with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time -- our economy. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for general debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed this house report 114- 846 offered by mr. desantis of florida. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 944, the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. desaulnier: mr. speaker, my amendment's very -- mr. desantis: mr. speaker, my amendment's very simple. it requires that any international agreement needs to be written in plain writing as a condition to enter the agreement. i'm offering this from the perspective of people in

florida, in my district and elsewhere, who are small businesses, who are small companies, who can't afford to hire large legal teams simply to understand overly complex regulations. they're already bessette with way too much. both in terms of the scope, but also in terms of the complexity and when you have a complex agreement or regulations imposed on them, it not only makes more difficult for them, it actually gives them a competitive disadvantage over some of the big companies that we're always hearing about. so i think writing in plain language, clear and concise, makes it easier for small businesses to comply without amassing huge amounts in legal fees and other overhead costs. plain writing doesn't change the regulation. you can have a regulation. it just requires it to be written in a way that doesn't require you to hire $500-an

hour attorneys to interpret for you. i think it's a commonsense way to help small business with no taxpayer expense. and i would note that the need for plain writing has been something that the congress on both sides of the aisle has embraced over decades. i appreciate my friend from missouri's bill. i intend to support it. i think this amendment will be added protection for those who are struggling to do well in an economy in which so much that comes out of washington seems to be making it more difficult for them to succeed. and with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. waters: mr. speaker, i claim -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. waters: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. although i'm not opposed to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: this amendment requires that any final standard agreed to under the terms of this bill will be composed in plain writing.

that law basically requires hat federal agencies use clear government communication that the public can can understand and use as a matter of general policy. i think that makes goodssenls. we want the public -- good sense. we want the public to be able to understand the rules and regulations that impact their daily lives. when government regulations are difficult to comprehend, it undermines rather than enhances our goal of setting clear rules of the road and preventing misconduct. but no amount of clear communication or plain writing will improve the basic issues with the underlying bill. of course we support plain writing and i wish that all of us would adopt and carry out and implement the legislation that was passed, supported by both sides of the aisle, for plain writing, with plain english. i wish the states would do. it with their propositions,

etc. we all pay lip service to to it. but then we come with the googley gmbing op that the american public has to try to understand -- gop that the american public has to try to understand. so, yes, i support plain writing, i support the public being able to understand what we do, but i don't want people to be confused. plain writing has nothing to do with the basic issues in this underlying bill. so while i do not issue -- take issue, with the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, i continue to urge my olleagues to oppose this bill. it is a solution in search of a problem. one that certainly does not exist. so i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. desantis: mr. speaker, i'm glad this is an amendment so i that my friend from california can embrace. and i urge everyone to embrace it and would just urge people to support the amendment and with that i will yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended, and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to provide greater transparency and congressional oversight of international insurance standards-setting processes and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on pass afpblgt bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the bill -- ms. waters: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i request the yeas and nays on the bill.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by five-minute votes on motions to suspend the rules th respect to h.r. 6076, nate bill 2971, and h.r. 5790. in each case, by the yeas and nays. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 239, the nays are 170. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, suspend the rules and pass h r. 6076s a amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered this eclerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6076, a bill to require the administrator of the national err naughtics and space administration to establish a program for the medical monitor, diagnosis, and treatment of astronauts and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amened? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 413, the nays are 0. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the

bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta, to suspend the rules and pass s. 2971 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 2971, an act to authorize the national urban search and rescue response system. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 405. the nays are seven. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5790, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.

the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5790, a bill to provide adequate protections for whistleblowers at the federal bureau of investigation. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 404. the nays are zero. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on

the table. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that we take from the speaker's table s. 3183 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3183, an act to prohibit the circumvention of control measures used by internet ticket sellers to share equitable consumer access to tickets for any given event and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is aid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 181, concurrent resolution directing the secretary of the senate to make a certain correction in the enrollment of senate 1635. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent

resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider s laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign affairs and the permanent select committee on intelligence be discharged from further consideration of senate bill 1632 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1632, an act to require a regional strategy to address the threat posed by boko haram. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask unanimous consent that all

members may have five legislative days to insert statements or extraneous materials for the bill 163 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. rolt lehtonen: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on additional motions to suspend the rulesed on which -- on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays ared or ird or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4298. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4298, a bill to direct the secretary of the army to place in arlington national cemetery a memorial honoring helicopter pilots and crew members of the vietnam era and or other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from nevada, mr. heck, and the gentlewoman from

california, mrs. davis, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada. mr. heck: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. heck: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heck: i rise in support of h.r. 4298 which directs the department of the army to place in arlington national cemetery, a memorial hon norg helicopter pilots and crew members who served on active duty in the armed forces during the vietnam war. mr. speaker, it's hard to think about the vietnam war without thinking about the significant role both man and machinery played throughout the war effort. the helicopter was the mainstay for operational mobility with approximately 12,000 helicopters used during the war by the army, navy, marines, and air force. these helicopters, flown by

tremendously skilled pilots and manned by brave and competent crew chiefs, door gunners, and medics, brought a constant stream of troops and supplies to the battlefields and carried the wounded from the battlefields, all while operating under extreme conditions at tremendous personal risk. helicopter support to combat operations in vietnam was not without significant loss. an estimated 5,000 helicopter pilots and crew members made the ultimate sacrifice during the war. mr. speaker, i would like to thank the gentleman from nevada for introducing this bill to permanently honor and remember the sacrifice by the extraordinary helicopter pilots and crew members who served in vietnam by placing a memorial in their honor in arlington national cemetery. i therefore strongly urge all members to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. davis: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. heck: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to my friend and colleague and sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from nevada, mr. am day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. am day: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the ranking member from the subcommittee. mr. amodei: i shouldn't be here talking thabt bill right now. the reason this bill was necessitated is because public law says the sec retear of the army can have monuments placed only in those actions -- in those sections of arlington national cemetery designated by the secretary for such placement and only on land the secretary deems not suitable for burial. there's about 30 million square feet at arlington national cemetery when you take the presently constructed, under construction addition and the planned additional constructed

addition. 30 million square feet. is bill seeks this amount of space out of 30 million square feet by those challenged by visual number, that's five square feet they have asked for for all services, not just the army, all services, and to commemorate the fact that they were nearly 10% of the casualties in the vietnam war. the helicopter war. now, i understand that graves is the primary mission of arlington national cemetery and i respect that. and i understand that there's a concern about being overrun with requests for memorials. and i concur with that concern. my concern is that public law doesn't say there will be no memorials at arlington national cemetery. so by the decision that the administration at arlington has made saying, you can't have five

square feet, they have basically changed the law effectively to, there are no memorials. the high bartha there should be for memorials, in effect, has been set up there touching the ceiling. if these folks, for all services, for nearly 10% of the casualties in the vietnam war, can't qualify, wonder who can? so the necessity for this legislation. five square feet. by the way, in the last quarter century, the -- quarter century, do you know how many memorials have been approved for placement ? arlington four. as we sit here on the anniversary of pearl harbor and talk again about some vietnam veteran, isn't it funny that we now have to come to congress and run a bill to respect those folks who, by the way, probably

kept a heck of a lot more names off that wall a little farther down the mall from here. so i would ask you to please support, and i want to thank the bipartisan support that i've received for members in both house, nationwide support, but my request is this. if we want to say, no more memorials at arlington, then we ought to say that in law. we shouldn't talk about space not available for graves and we shouldn't talk about people who represent almost 10% of the casualties in a conflict can't, are not entitled to five square feet. by the way, at no cost to the government. maintenance at no cost to the government. so with that in hand, i would urge your bipartisan, nationwide support to do the right thing for almost 5,000 people who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the helicopter war in the service in these what were then cutting edge, iconic machines. thank you, mr. speaker, i want to thank my colleagues, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from nevada reserves.

the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. davis: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from nevada is recognized. mr. heck: thank you, mr. speaker. as my colleague stated, the service commitment and dedication of the helicopter pilots in the vietnam war is critical to saving many lives. as somebody who is a flight surgeon, spent hundreds of hours in the back of a helicopter, who served as chief of medical evacuation in iraq in 2008 i can personally attest to the bravery and commitment to helicopter pilot and crew members and what they do for the men and women in uniform. i strongly urge the house to support this bill and provide this memorial at arlington national cemetery. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4298? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the

rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid n the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 613, the holocaust ex-presented art recovery act of -- expropriated act re-- art recovery act of 2016. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6130, a bill to

give victims of the holocaust and their heirs a fair chance to recover works of artemis aappropriated or stole bin the nazis a chance to recover their art. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 6130, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: from 1933, when hitler took pow for the germany, in 1945 when the allied forces liberated europe, the nazis and their collaborators stole countless works of art and cultural objects from museums and private collections throughout europe. indeed, according to the american alliance of museum the nazi regime orchestrated a system of theft, confiscation,

coercive transfer, loot, pillage, and destruction of objects of art and other cultural property in europe on a massive and unprecedented scale. millions of such objects were unlawfully and often forcibly taken from their rightful owners. this systematic looting and confiscation of the cultural property of the jews and other persecuted groups has been described as the greatest displacement of art in human history. in order to provide the victims of the holocaust and their heirs with fair opportunity in our courts to recover artwork confiscated or misappropriated by the nazis, representative nadler and i, along with several other bipartisan co-sponsors, introduced the holocaust expropriated -- expropriated art recovery act or hear act. it's been co-sponsored in the --

it's been sponsored in the enate. in recent years, the united states has joined with other nations to declare the importance of restoring nazi looted and confiscated art to its rightful owners. for instance, in the 198 -- in the 1998 washington conference, principles on nazi confiscated art, the united states and 4 p other nations declared that holocaust victims an their heirs should be encouraged to come forward and make known their claims to art that was confiscated by the nazis and not subsequently rest constituted and that step -- subsequently restituted and steps should be taken to further such claim. nd in 1999, we said that legal systems should have just and

fair systems with regard to nazi looted art and make certain that claims to recover such art are resolved expeditiously and based on the facts and merits of the claims. enactment of the hear act is an important step in following through on these principles. the vast majority of victims whose property was misappropriated in the holocaust simply lack the information, resources, and sometimes wherewithal to pursue litigation to recover their property. even for those with the resources, locating and proving ownership of nazi looted art proved to be extremely difficult. moreover, the psychological trauma of the holocaust often prevented victims from pursuing lost property. those who have seen the recent movie "woman in gold" which tells the story of maria altman's arduous legal battle to recover her family's possessions seized by the nazis, including the famous portrait of her aunt by gustav klimt can understand

how difficult litigation to reclaim nazi confiscated art can be. ms. altman was in litigation for many years before her family's art work was recovered from the austrian government in 2006. at least in ms. altman's case, litigation was successful. however, as the ninth circuit court of appeals has observed, many obstacles face those who attempt to recover holocaust era art through lawsuits, including procedural hurdles such as statutes of limitations that prevent the merits of claims from ever being adjudicated. given the unique and horrific circumstances of world war ii and the holocaust, state statutes of limitations can be an unfair impediment to the victims and their heirs and contrary to the stated policy of the united states. according toly the hear act -- according toly, the hear act's uniform rules is needed to

ensure the united states fulfills its promise to ensure just and fair solutions with regard to nazi confiscated and looted art and to make sure that claims to recover such art are aided expeditiously and based on the facts and merits of the claim. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation so cases involving nazi confiscated artwork are resolved in our courts in a just and fair manner on the merits of those claims. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. . mr. cohen: i appreciate mr. goodlatte, the chairman, the sponsor, mr. nadler a democrat co-lead. i rise in support of the holocaust expropriated art recovery act of 2016. h.r. 6130 creates a new six-year federal statute of limitations for those to recover artwork that was stolen, seized, sold under

duress or sold during the period from january 1, 1933, to december 3 1,1945. the bill provides that this limitation period begins upon a claimant's actual discovery of the identity and location of the art that was unlawfully lost, and information or facts sufficient to indicate the claimant has a interest in the art. in addition, the bill specifies this new limitation prior to december 31, 2026. finally, the bill's provisions sunsets january 1, 2027. the new federal limitations period established by h.r. 6130 is necessary because state statute of limitations bar claims if they are not filed within some specified million of years from the date of the loss. for holocaust-era art, the victims didn't know if there cultural property had been stolen by the nazis and located

and present. importantly, h.r. 6130 restores the claims that were barred by existing statutes of limitations as the moment of actual discoverying the bill's new six-year limitation period. this critical legislation encourages restitution for victims of the nazi government or its allies and agents, including with respect to nazi confiscated or looted art. as recently as this morning, a feature article is in "the new york times," "jewish dealers eirs file lawsuit over art." now, indeed, that case is about the facts but it shows there's still active cases where it's been discovered there was art that was owned by jewish people, that was taken by others in the hands of the nazis and there's issue whether or not there's a right to recover it. this art was discovered some

person's house that had been hidden for years, in a person's house behind walls and only discovered about three years ago, all this valuable art that had been stolen and hidden, that the rightful owners are heirs to the owners would have a right in american courts to pursue justice. in recognition of the nazi government's delivered campaign to steal artwork and other cultural property from its victims, h.r. 6130 rightfully ensures victims have a chance to have their day in court to pursue justice. accordingly, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: i yield three minutes and 36 seconds to mr. nadler of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes and 36 seconds. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 61030, the holocaust expropriated art recovery act.

this legislation will help restore artwork and heritage stolen by the nazis during the holocaust to their rightful owners or heirs. i was proud to join charm goodlatte in introducing this bill. in addition to their crimes of genocide and mass murder, the nazis engaged in theft of art and property. mostly but not entirely from jews all across europe. the scope of their theft was massive and the damaging effects remain with us today, with victims still seeking justice in some form of compensation. nearly 20 years ago in 1998, the united states brought together 44 nations to produce a set of principles of nazi confiscated art. they agreed steps should be taken expeditiously to achieve a just and fair solution to the outstanding claims. in 2009, the united states joined 45 other nations in prague to issue was was known as the terezin declarations which affirmed these

declarations. 71 years after the defeat of the nazis and liberation of europe, many are not able to pursue their claims in court because of restricted statutes of limitations in the states. these require a claimant to bring a case when the loss was discovered. the information required to file a claim regarding artwork stolen by the nazis was not brought to light until many years later, forcing courts to dismiss cases before they could be judged on the merits. in some cases the law would have wanted it to be brought to the court before world war ii. such efforts have been ruled unconstitutional as an infringement on the federal government's exclusive authority over foreign affairs. federal legislation, therefore, is needed to bring justice to this area. this bill would set a uniform six-year federal statute of limitations for claims of nazi-confiscated art from the

time the identity and location of the artwork and the ownership of the claimant are discovered. it would restore the claims of those claimants whose cases were dismissed previously because of a statute of limitation. this bill would finally ensure that the rightful owners and their decedents can have their claims properly adjudicated. i want to thank ronald louder, president of the world jewish congress for his determined efforts to see this issue is resolved and chairman good let's for working with me and our colleagues for bringing this legislation forward. while no act of contrition will reverse the horrors committed by the nazis, when one thing we process. have a fair i urge strong support of this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i have no more speakers. i'm precleared to close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. cohen: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the lady from texas and carrier of the spirit of barbara jordan, the honorable sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. i thank the e: speaker very much, and i thank the manager, mr. cohen, and the chairman of the committee and both sponsors and of course the leader of sponsorship, mr. nadler of new york, and i thank the ranking member, mr. conyers. i rise in strong support of h.r. 6130, the holocaust expropriated act -- recovery act of 2016. and i'm very grateful that my colleagues have brought this to the attention of the house but also this important legislation

to try to bring some remedy and solace to a depeff stating era of jen -- devastating era of genocide, the holocaust, to bring some relief to the victims of the holocaust era, their heirs, a fair opportunity to recover works confiscated or nazis. ropriated by the they would have the proper time necessary to do so under h.r. 6130. the bill would apply to art and other antiquities such as books, that were stolen from jewish people and other persecuted groups by the german nazi regime from 1933 to 1945. in the times that i visited israel, i have spent much time in the holocaust museum as i have spent time in the holocaust exhibit and tribute here in washington and our own holocaust museum in houston, texas. i've been on the advisory board

of the holocaust museum in houston, texas, participated in the holocaust ceremonies here. and so this is a very important legal remedy. while the united states is a signatory of the 200 tenezin declarations that they can claim items lost during the holocaust, they have faced barriers because of state statutes of limitations which in somecations would have expired even before the end of world war ii. under this legislation, individuals would have as much as six years from the time they discovered the identity and location of the piece of the art or other property or learned they may have ownership of such art or property to file such an ownership claim. the bill's findings has a sense of congress setting a statute of limitations will allow claims to be settled through alternative dispute resolution methodes that will produce more

just and fair outcomes. the actual bottom line of this legislation as we were able to see and the academy award-winning actress in the film "women in gold" is a fair and just relief to those so persecuted. what more can be taken from you, your life, liberty, lost loved ones and then those special artifacts, antiquities, that would bring back the memory of your familiar leaned history? this legislation is well-needed. it's a relief for those in pain and i support and ask my colleagues to support the olocaust expropriated act of 2016 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: first, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the conyers, the ranking member's statement be accepted and made part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cohen: thank you. i believe we don't have any

other speakers and i'd like to close. this bill, supported by many, the world jewish congress, the world jewish restitution organization and the association of art museum directors. do i applaud chairman good lack and mr. nadler for their work on this important legislation. i urge my colleagues to support it. i just kind of paraphernalia theyically. i watched a movie called "race" which was put out last fall about jesse owens and it was a move about the 1936 olympics and how hitler didn't want him to participate and how there were two jewish runners who were supposed to participate and they were scratched by our american olympic chairman because he didn't want the jewish men to run in front of hitler and win because they would have and they won by the -- the americans won by a large amount of space and time and that was not allowed. things that happened there should never be forgotten.

wasle was remembered at the holocaust museum recently and passed earlier this year and he told us we can never forget and we should all bear witness and bear witness and remember and try to do justice to the victims of the holocaust as we should to the people have been disenfranchised and damaged and hurt by our periods of jim crow and slavery. keep us atuned and aware and alert. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, this is important legislation. i commend my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as members on this side of the aisle for their bipartisan spirit in passing this. this will only do a small thing relative to trying to right the wrongs of the history of the nazi regime, but it is an important step in that process and i strongly support it and urge my colleagues to do the

same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6130. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee of rules for filing under the rule. the clerk: torpt title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 949, resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 2028, making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill senate 612, to designate the federal building and united states courthouse located at 1300 viktoria street

in lohr aido, texas, as the george p. casen federal building and united states courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar nd ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4919, the kevin and avonte's law of 2016 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4919, a bill to amend the violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1919 9/11 4 to re--- 1994 to re-authorize the program and promote initiatives that will reduce the risk of injury and death relating to