Mark Amodei

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the birthday of a Nevada icon. I am sure you all recall that the State of Nevada turned 150 a few years ago, and that the Biggest Little City in the World, Reno, is turning 150. Well, Bob Cashell, former University of Nevada regent, former Nevada lieutenant governor, and former mayor of the city of Reno, is past the halfway point in catching the State of Nevada and the city of Reno at 150. He is 80, four score. A native of the Lone Star State, like many Nevadans, Bob got to Nevada as fast as he could. A leader in Nevada's gaming resort industry, an A list philanthropist, and a blue chip public servant, he has done some great work as a Nevadan. Of course, he owes all of his success, and his defiance of the actuarial tables, to his wife Nancy, who has performed miracles during their lifelong partnership of transforming this pilgrim from Texas into a special part of Nevada's fabric. Thank you, Nancy. And happy birthday to you, Mr. Mayor, for life. Bob Cashell is 80.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with birthday wishes for the premier municipality in the Nation--not the Big Apple, not the Windy City, not the City by the Bay, or the Big Easy. I am talking about the Biggest Little City in the World, Reno, Nevada. Reno turns 150, celebrating its sesquicentennial. Congratulations to you Mayor Hillary Schieve and the city council. Happy birthday, Reno, Nevada.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Montana and Hawaii for their supportiveness. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, this is what you get when people talk about issues and not cliches. This is a long time in the making, as has been previously indicated, folks from the wilderness areas, folks from economic development areas, folks from the resource extraction areas all coming together on this. But just in case there is some concern about, oh my God, potentially we are transferring the Federal estate, let's remind people of a couple of things that are in this legislation. First of all, nothing is transferred for nothing. It talks about the appraisal process and how, if you are going to purchase the Federal estate, you are going to pay for it. Secondly, it is talking about exchanges along the Trans-Pacific legislation on the checkerboard from 1862, which talks about the Secretary of the Interior is a full partner with the county commission in identifying those lands that are appropriate for exchange. Why is this important? This is important because if they don't think it is a good idea to exchange, then the Secretary of the Interior can stop that process, so it doesn't force the Secretary of the Interior to exchange land that he or she, in the future, doesn't want to. But let's remind ourselves of one other thing. Exchanges of checkerboard land are not just something that benefits perhaps economic development along the Interstate 80 corridor, or somebody who does a cow-calf operation somewhere. It also allows resource managers, Federal land managers, wildlife people to consolidate checkerboard lands where they need to be consolidated, to do things like preserve habitat, preserve special resource areas, whether it is for mule deer, whether it is for the endangered species potential of the sage hen, and other things like that. So it is a two-way street. So my congratulations to the folks of Pershing County and the BLM employees in the Winnemucca district. By the way, no lands are subject to this that haven't been identified in their resource management plan, their planning document, as potentially available for either exchange or disposal. Finally, I want to remind you of this: there are 150,000 acres that can be bought out of a potential Federal estate of over 9 million acres in that county. So it is a fraction of 1 percent. And of the potential available for exchange, it sets an upper limit of 300,000, potential. The county has to ask for it, the Secretary has to agree to an exchange. So when you talk about the size of the Federal estate in Pershing County--which, by the way, is the home to the Burning Man festival, for those of you who follow that sort of stuff--it is something that is, quite frankly, not going to change the landscape, literally speaking, in terms of the ownership and the diminishment of the Federal estate. They are still the major player to the tune of--at the end of the day, 95 percent of the Federal estate is still intact. Finally, on wilderness study areas and wilderness creation areas, in this bill, you have created about 148,000 acres of new wilderness areas and you have released parts of five different wilderness study areas that are about 48,000 acres. So when you start talking about this is a good housekeeping measure, it allows Pershing County to come into the new age in terms of what they think is appropriate for their economic diversification and vitality, but also gives Federal land managers, resource folks, wildlife groups, and conservation groups, the tools to do good things in Pershing County, too. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his generous provision of the time. The last piece is this: the most successful public lands legislation in the country is probably the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, which turns 20 this year. Much of this is patterned on that. When you talk about what happens when they sell land, money goes to education and it goes to the county, and then 85 percent of every dollar brought in goes for the benefit of those Federal lands, for those land managers in Pershing County. It has been working in southern Nevada for 20 years. This is a good step. I encourage bipartisan, nationwide support.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I intended to vote ``nay'' on rollcall No. 650.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my colleague from the financial institution folks, one of the things in the CHOICE Act is the Mick Mulvaney-generated transparency amendments that we are not trying to strike. It is not like we are hiding anything. And I missed the part where it says, oh, the fact that they are not taxpayer funds makes it okay that we go ahead and try to sweep those into that. I also missed the fact, quite frankly, that this is different than something like the Bureau of Consumer Protection folks who were an out- of-control executive branch agency using federally appropriated funds to do as they darn well please. I missed the fact where we have got a problem with credit unions taking care of their own administration and their own insurance. And I, finally, missed the fact where, quite frankly, we have absolutely no problem with respect to these folks' performance record. So when you talk about going out and getting nontaxpayer-generated funds and saying we are going to bring those--by the way, good luck for these folks to get under our budgeting process. I won't say anything more than that, Mr. Chairman. Good luck. Whose budget are they going under? Who are we waiting for approval so we can say keep doing the things the way you were? So I will just say that this is a problem that does not exist with a solution that is being applied because of other regulators, which I agree with, but it is like to suggest, quite frankly, that the CHOICE Act was perfect and doesn't need a second look on a small thing like this, I mean, hats off to the committee. It is the only perfect committee I know of that has ever existed. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I will just say this: We ought to take a look at what track records are. And when we take a look at that and we look at unintended consequences, when you start branching out, for those of you folks in Production Credit Association territory and things like that and the budget issues and all of that other sort of stuff, it is like these folks are doing a good job. Let's let them continue to do that. Mr. Chairman, I would urge your bipartisan, nationwide support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. One size does not fit all. As an enthusiastic supporter of the CHOICE Act, I must confess it is not perfect. You have been told all financial regulators should be subject to the power of the Federal purse. Well, this regulatory agency, the National Credit Union Administration, uses no Federal funds to operate, to administer, or to manage the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund--let me repeat, uses no Federal funds. Now, when nontaxpayer funds are required to be federally appropriated, hopefully, this strikes you as an odd idea. But when the funds in question are placed under the appropriations process and are subject to being swept for other Federal spending measures, I hope that bothers you--not strikes you as odd, but bothers you. Credit union member-generated insurance funds are now, by virtue of being put into the appropriations process, subject to being swept for other Federal spending processes. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar).

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

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a colloquy with you on an important issue related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This Congress should act swiftly and establish a five-member, bipartisan commission at the CFPB. A commission structure will bring much needed certainty and stability to consumers and small businesses who are the most deeply impacted by regulation that reduces access to banking products and drives up costs. According to FDIC data, financial institutions of all sizes provide more than $4 trillion in consumer loans to help America's consumers achieve their dreams of purchasing a car, buying their first home, or even providing an education for their children. Financial institutions also provide more than $600 billion in small business loans to help entrepreneurs start or grow their businesses and create jobs. The ability of banks and credit unions to continue to serve their communities by providing access to credit is critical to making these dreams a reality. Therefore, it is important that the agencies that regulate our nation's depository institutions are stable, transparent, and provide long term certainty. A five-member, bipartisan commission at the CFPB will help achieve just that. Right now, a sole director at the CFPB over politicizes what should be an impartial regulatory body. With every new Director there could be a dramatic regulatory whipsaw effect. This volatility will leave financial institutions limited in their ability to properly serve customers because of an inability to plan for the long-term. Protecting consumers and increasing access to well-regulated financial products should be a top priority of the CFPB. A bipartisan board will ensure consumers best interests are always first by increasing transparency and stability in the rulemaking process and allowing for more robust debate with many different viewpoints considered. On multiple occasions, the House of Representatives has passed legislation to create a bipartisan commission, and most importantly, the American people have made clear that they believe a bipartisan commission is a better form of leadership at the CFPB. In fact, a recent Morning Consult poll showed that registered voters support a bipartisan commission at the CFPB by a 3 to 1 margin, and that just 14 percent of voters believe the CFPB structure should be left the way it is now. Congress must implement structural changes at the CFPB. The future of consumer and small business lending is too vital to have uncertainty at the Bureau. Mr. Chairman, do you agree that the regulatory agencies that oversee banks and credit unions should take into account the impact to all stakeholders and bring certainty to the regulatory framework? Will you commit to working with me to depoliticize the CFPB once and for all, and bring a stable form of leadership to the Bureau that is in keeping with most other financial service regulators?

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor Captain Joshua Byers, a fallen soldier, son, husband, brother, and friend. In Sparks, Nevada, Captain Byers lives on as a legacy. His kind heart, patriotic soul, and strong ideals of servant leadership have left a strong and lasting impact on everyone who knew him. Captain Byers attended Edward C. Reed High School in Sparks, the home of the Raiders. Although not originally from Sparks, Captain Byers moved with his mother, father, and two younger brothers to chase a dream and God's calling in Nevada. While at Reed High School, he joined the Naval Junior ROTC program and various other clubs, all while maintaining excellent grades. When he reached his senior year, he was student body president, the battalion commander of the Junior ROTC unit, and in line to be valedictorian on graduation. One of his biggest dreams was to attend one of the Nation's service academies. After he completed his 4 years at Reed High School, he accepted an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, Hudson High. Upon graduating from West Point, he earned an Army Ranger tab and was deployed to Iraq in 2003, where he was killed in action due to an IED explosion. His legacy lives on at Reed High School, especially in the NJROTC program. Through an award given there by one of the past instructors as well, there is now being more done in order to memorialize a hero who left such a profound impact on those who knew him and were around him. The NJROTC hallway at Reed High is going to be completely dedicated to Captain Byers, being named the Captain Joshua T. Byers Leadership Memorial Hallway. In this hall you can find Captain Byers' uniform, awards, military decorations, and various pictures and stories to help capture the essence of this hero in our hearts and minds. Mr. Speaker, I ask today that we keep the Byers family and Joshua in our prayers and thoughts.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. I thank my colleague from the Silver State and also the ranking member from the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I really shouldn't be here talking about this bill right now. The reason this bill was necessitated is that the public law says that the Secretary of the Army can have monuments placed only in those sections of Arlington National Cemetery that are designated by the Secretary for such placement and only on land that the Secretary deems not suitable for burial. There are about 30 million square feet at Arlington National Cemetery when you take the presently under- construction addition and the planned additional constructed addition-- 30 million square feet. This bill seeks this amount of space out of 30 million square feet. For those of you who are challenged by visual numbers, that is 5 square feet that they have asked for for all services--not just the Army but all services--and to commemorate the fact that they were nearly 10 percent of the casualties in the Vietnam war--the Helicopter war. I understand graves to be the primary mission for Arlington National Cemetery, and I respect that. I understand that there is a concern about being overrun with requests for memorials, and I concur with that concern. My problem is that that public law doesn't say there will be no memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. By the decision that the administration at Arlington has made that says you can't have 5 square feet, they have basically changed the law effectively to: there are no memorials. The high bar that there should be for memorials, in effect, has been set up there, touching the ceiling. If these folks--for all services and for nearly 10 percent of the casualties in the Vietnam war--can't qualify, I wonder who can. So the necessity for this legislation: 5 square feet. By the way, in the last quarter of a century, do you know how many memorials have been approved for placement at Arlington? You don't need all of the fingers on one hand. Four. You need all of the fingers; you just don't need the thumb. Four. We are not overrun with memorials. As we sit here on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor and as we talk again about some Vietnam veterans, 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. I thank the bipartisan support that I have received from Members in both Houses--nationwide support. My request is this: if we want to say ``no more memorials at Arlington,'' then we ought to say that in the law. We shouldn't talk about space not being available for graves, and we shouldn't talk about people who represent almost 10 percent of the casualties in a conflict not being entitled to 5 square feet. By the way, at no cost to the government and with maintenance at no cost to the government. With that in hand, I urge bipartisan nationwide support to do the right thing for almost 5,000 people who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the Helicopter war in the service, in these--what were then--cutting- edge iconic machines. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. I thank my colleague from the Pelican State and also the ranking member from the Bay State. Mr. Speaker, I am a bit nervous. I don't want to break up this Lone Star class reunion here, but speaking on behalf of a small place in the intermountain west, section 481 of H.R. 875 addresses a CBP staffing issue at smaller land port of entry airports. As we all know, the CBP mission at our numerous ports of entry is growing, and adequate staffing at the larger ports needs to be augmented. However, airport authorities and smaller land ports of entry are also increasing their international passenger counts and need additional CBP personnel to adequately screen their passengers. The language contained herein allows small land port airports to reimburse CBP the actual cost of assigning up to five more CBP screening personnel, thereby keeping screening times within reasonable limits for those air passengers. This language represents bicameral, bipartisan, nationwide consensus on a needed staffing reimbursement option for CBP. Similarly, I urge Members' bipartisan nationwide support. God bless the State of Texas and the other 49 also.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona and the ranking member. I appreciate the fact that the committee has taken this issue. As the person who represents the only district west of the Mississippi that was fortunate enough to be considered as deserving in this, I just want to make a couple of points. From the earlier talks too, it is like none of these ZIP Codes were ones where people just said: hey, let's go, OGR folks, and create a new one. Without exception, everybody went to the Postal Service and said: here is our stuff. And while the people in my State were good about it, what we got from the folks back here was basically: we kind of don't do that, and if you ask and if you are turned down, you can't ask again for X number of years. It is almost an implied threat for requesting one. So I can't thank the committee enough for taking a look into the issue. This particular one is actually the largest industrial park in the Nation--the marketing people tell me, so I will assume they are right--and it helps in another area, which is the State tax department that collects sales taxes. When you are building something, there are a lot of sales taxes based on ZIP Codes. So this will make sure that those sales tax dollars are generated and credited to where those materials are actually going. And I want to also note for the Record before I yield back that what you have here, apparently, is the three greatest States in the Nation-- New York, Florida, and Nevada--and so the other 47, keep trying.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I will concede the point that maybe your Reagan quote was better, and I want to welcome you to the Reagan quote club. We are glad to have you on board. Let me just say this. This seeks a level playing field. I think we have a 38-year history. I provided some facts that I think are relevant. Nobody is seeking advantage here. It is to treat everybody the same. I believe the word is the E word, which is equality. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, to quote the same Ronald Reagan, ``facts are stubborn things.'' Let's take a look at the facts here. Trade associations may give 2-1 to Republicans, since we brought up the P word for politics; however, the ones that aren't regulated, which are labor PACs, give 9-1 to Democrats. We are not asking you to pick one or the other; we are asking you to treat them all the same. Oh, and by the way, on this very floor earlier tonight, I believe there was some discussion about we are not hiding anything. If you want to see who gave to whom, you go to the FEC Web site. So it is not a question of are we hiding something. I want to just give you a couple of more stubborn things, and then I will reserve. The top 20 PACs in the 2014 cycle were all outside the prior approval rule. The top three are EMILY's List, SEIU, and the National Rifle Association. This is probably the first time those three outfits have been mentioned in the same sentence, but they are not required to do this. By the way, Independent Electrical Contractors and the Rural Broadband Association should enjoy the same First Amendment rights to participate, which are now prohibited by this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. AMODEI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds being used by the FEC to enforce the prior approval requirement for trade associations. The prior approval requirement is the requirement that trade associations must acquire written approval for Member corporations to solicit PAC donations. They must further require stockholders and member companies to only contribute to one trade association. It is a requirement in the FEC laws that is unique amongst all PACs only to those that are trade association-related PACs. So, therefore, the objective of the amendment is to say, out of all of the PACs out there, we do not need to treat trade associations specially. We should treat everybody the same, all PACs, including trade associations. It was a result of a law that was passed in 1978 which, I would submit to you, for the last 38 years, has been a solution in search of a problem.

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

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member. As I sit here listening, I hear the words appropriately appropriate, poison pill riders, real losers American people, veto threats from the President, accept reality, and I ask myself: Who do I work for? I don't want to speak for any of my 434 other colleagues. I don't work for the President. I work for the 700,000 people that sent me here, just like other people work for people from different States. So the fact that I may disagree with the administration on something isn't news to anybody in a congressional context. But I sit here and look at this and I am thinking: My God, we are interfering with women's health directives. And I hear about the Affordable Care Act and the IRS cuts, and it is like I didn't get a great grade in civics, but I got a good enough one. Part of this role is oversight. That is the key of appropriations. So we are conducting that because there are differences of opinion. While one side advocates what they think is the right policy, the other side does the exact same thing. So to feign offense when somebody is doing what they think is right, I am not impugning the motives of anybody, but I have got to tell you, when I hear about interfering with women's health decisions and I think about the ACA and they are mentioned in the same sentence, I am like: Wow, I missed something there. Dodd-Frank, CFPB, it is like oversight. Not that we don't need it. We need some watchdogs on Wall Street, we need some watchdogs on those financial things. Quite frankly, when I hear about poison pill riders, how about poison injection regulations? With all due respect, ideologically driven riders, how about ideologically driven regulations? We need to say what we think is appropriate for the people who sent us here. No disrespect to this administration, although I wonder what foot the shoe would have been on 8 years ago, but I wasn't here then because I am too young to remember that. I must say, it is like: Listen, we are going to disagree on policy. But to suggest somehow that because the Congress thought of something in the majority of this House that it is a poison pill rider and pretend like everything that comes out of regulations, whether it is in financial services, health care, running the IRS, 501(c)(3)s, all those problems, it is like: You are darn right we better be doing our oversight thing. And by the way, in the C I got in civics, the power of the purse is the biggest stick in oversight, and it should be used.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. I thank my colleague from the Silver State and my colleague from the Show Me State. I appreciate the background. Mr. Speaker, this is the return of a bill that was passed in the 114th Congress by a voice vote in the House of Representatives. It went to the Senate. I can't tell you what happened there, but the good news is that the 114th Congress, the Senate, has moved on a companion bill; so we might actually get some resolution of this. I note that my colleague from the Show Me State mentioned patience and hard work. I want to point out that, for the folks of the Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe, the 19,000-acre transfer that is proposed in this piece of legislation was first before the United States Congress in a bill that was introduced in 1972 by then-Nevada Senators Alan Bible and Howard Cannon. Certainly, that tribe gets the ``patience'' award in terms of waiting to fill in what is largely checkerboard-type holdings to consolidate their holdings in the whole thing. As a whole, about 31,000 acres are in my colleague's CD4 district, and 40,000 acres are in the rest of CD2. There is a variety of things to provide housing to attract healthcare facility givers and cultural resource preservation buffer zones. It has been through the planning process in those counties in which it is. Many off-road vehicle organizations support this. It can hardly be said to have been sprung on anybody. I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I don't usually show up unannounced or uninvited. But I have listened to the debate on this, and I find absolutely amazing the outpouring of abhorrence for potential gun violence from a body that failed to have a moment of silence for Kate Steinle, that failed to do anything to recognize that instance of gun violence in the Bay Area. So, as I sit here and listen to all of the deplorable, junior varsity theater on the message, I wonder: Why aren't we doing something about that instance, which was put in the rearview mirror instantly and accelerate it away at the speed of light? America, the junior varsity theater is in session on this issue. I encourage you to skip the show.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, God forbid we place dealing with bedrock American issues ahead of the culture of political cliche. It is always nice to be informed of what the status is in the Intermountain West by people from towns that end in the name ``Beach.'' I find it incredibly interesting that we have heard on several occasions that the administration's average for the supermajority of applications is 36 months or less and how we need to work together on things when the legislation on the floor right now calls for a 30-month timeframe, which is extendable, by the way, with the consent of both parties. So instead of, Well, let's have an amendment to make it 36 months and put this on the suspension calendar, we are subjected to ``This is bad'' and ``It disenfranchises the public'' and all that. Let's talk about what this is really about. There is an old saying in the law: When you have got the facts, you argue the facts. When you have got the law, you argue the law. When you don't have either, you just argue. Here we are. Because everybody in the room knows, depending on what side of the issue you are on, the big tool in this thing is, if we can outwait them, the capital will go elsewhere. Guess what. The folks that believe in that are winning. When we talk about those bedrock American issues, things like jobs, things like public participation--you know, 30 months, that is longer than we get to hang out here after the people of our district give us their voting card. That is longer--used to be--than somebody would take to try to talk you into voting for them for Governor or President. Nobody can accuse this legislation, at 2\1/2\ years, extendable by stipulation, of forcing the public to sit on their hands. Jobs, participation of the public, balance of trade, that is not important. I mean, why should we be concerned about balance of trade and exporting the minerals that this country is wealthy with? You want to talk about abandoned mines? In my State, those folks happen to be doing a great job. If you want to talk about the culture of the 1870s, yeah, but it has come a long way. God forbid, when we talk about paying your fair share, in my State, the industry pays north of $80,000 a year. Those people pay Federal income taxes. They buy goods and services that are federally taxed: gasoline, tires, all that stuff. But, no, let's send those jobs overseas where none of that happens. None of that happens. That is smart policy. I simply disagree. God forbid we talk about commercial supplies, national security, strategic supplies. Other speakers have talked about that. This is not some dream job for the minerals extraction industry. Oh, by the way, let's not look at the folks down in the Palmetto State right now who are experiencing phenomenal floods that might need materials to kind of rebuild their State. God forbid we talk about sand and gravel for those folks in the Golden State after the Loma Prieta earthquake and they needed to rebuild things called freeways lickety-split. This is not about supplying sand for your kid's sandbox. This is not about gravel for your driveway in your subdivision. This is about having flexibility to address issues that are mineral related. Because you know what, nobody has called this place, regardless of who is running it, nimble. When one of these issues comes up, God forbid you give them: That is right, folks. Hang on to your hats. Thirty months to try to get the permission from the Federal Government to extract minerals on that. With all due respect, what this is all about is: Do you continue to let folks who are opposed to things try to starve them out and wait and wait and wait until the capital goes elsewhere or do you take the folks and the administration's word: Nice job. Takes you 36 months? You want us to change it to 33 months and put it on the suspension calendar? I will do it. But short of that, me thinks thou doth protest too much. I solicit your earnest support, and I am looking forward to the Senate work on it this time because we are nimble compared to those folks on the north end of the building.

Mr. AMODEI

Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Thursday, September 24, 2015, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in Joint Meeting Pope Francis of the Holy See.