Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to increase bureaucracy or hire a whole lot more people to implement this. We have plenty of people right now who work for the Federal Government, and I am sure that we can shift some resources around, people can work harder and smarter, and we can be leaner and meaner. The bureaucracy has grown far too large over the years. That money comes from somewhere. Where does it come from? It comes out of the hardworking taxpayers of our country. A lot of those folks are small business folks, and they are folks that have gotten the short end of the stick far too often. Hopefully, this Congress will move legislation that comes out of this body in a direction where, rather than throw roadblocks, hindrances, and more problems in the pathway of small businesses, we are going to help them. I know the last thing they want to hear is: I am from the government, and I am here to help you. The fact is the government does exist, and to the extent we can help them, we ought to do that. But most of the small businesses that I talk to, what they say is: just get the heck off my back. Quit telling me how to do what I know how to do best. So we are not anarchists over here. We are not saying that we don't need any bureaucracy, we don't need any government, and we don't need any regulations. We do need some regulations, but we overregulate now. Hopefully, this is just one step in scaling back on the overregulation that comes out of Washington and is like a wet blanket over small businesses all over the country and like a wet blanket over the American economy. So let's get that wet blanket off, let's get the economy moving, and let's Make America Great Again. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a couple of points. First, before speaking in opposition to this amendment, I would note that the ranking member, Ms. Velazquez, and I worked very much in a bipartisan and cooperative manner on a whole range of issues. We have done that when she chaired the committee and I was the ranking member, and we do that now that I am the chair and she is the ranking member. I commend her for that cooperation. We have actually gotten a lot of things done in the Small Business Committee on behalf of small businesses all across the country in both Democratic and Republican districts. That being said, I would also note that this particular language, in essence, replaces our H.R. 5, title III, with Ms. Velazquez's version. She mentioned that hers is bipartisan. Ours is as well. Mr. Cuellar was a principal cosponsor of this particular legislation, so, by definition, it is bipartisan. I would also note that we have dealt with this a number of times over the years, and we have included a significant number of Democratic amendments already in our underlying bill as well. So it truly is bipartisan. The gentlewoman from New York's amendment would essentially strike title III of the bill, and it would replace it with alternative language. While I am heartened that she agrees that the Regulatory Flexibility Act needs to be improved, this amendment just does not go far enough to address, in my view, most Federal agencies' habitual disregards for small businesses. We know that the bureaucracy does disregard small businesses time and time again. That is why we feel so strongly about this bill. Ms. Velazquez's amendment includes a few of the reforms that the current title has, but, unfortunately, it fails to include many other important ones. Her amendment does not close the loophole the IRS uses to avoid complying with the RFA, for example, and it does not provide additional opportunities for small businesses to provide input on proposed rules through the Small Business Advocacy Review panel process. It does not require the Chief Counsel for Advocacy to issue government-wide RFA compliance regulations that all agencies must follow. Without these compliance regulations, agencies will just continue to develop their own interpretations of the RFA to avoid complying with the law's requirement. America's small businesses deserve more meaningful reform, and the current title III of the bill, in our view, does just that; therefore, I would urge my colleagues, respectfully, to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer this amendment to address a longstanding problem: agencies not fully analyzing the effects of regulations on small businesses. Under the current Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency may certify a rule if it expects that the rule will not have--and I am quoting the current law here--``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' When an agency certifies a rule, it does not need to perform a full regulatory flexibility analysis. This provision makes sense because not every rule affects small businesses. Unfortunately, agencies appear to be abusing this provision. According to a recent study, agencies only prepared analyses for approximately 8 percent of rules finalized between 1996 and 2012. A recent example of this occurred with the controversial waters of United States rule. The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers certified that rule despite the significant and direct consequences for farmers, ranchers, and home builders. Most of those are small businesses. Although the Small Business Administration Chief Counsel for Advocacy sent a letter to the agencies stating that the certification was improper and urging them to withdraw the rule, the agencies ignored the Chief Counsel and proceeded to finalize it anyway. This amendment addresses this problem by requiring agencies to include--and I am quoting my amendment--``an economic assessment or a summary thereof that is sufficiently detailed to support the agency's certification.'' This will be published in the Federal Register as part of the detailed statement and certification for the proposed rule. This approach mirrors the one used in the National Environmental Policy Act. When an agency finds a project to have no significant impacts on the environment, it is required to provide an environmental assessment or a summary of it. Since agencies are required to provide a threshold analysis when they issue a finding of no significant impact for actions that could affect the environment, it just makes sense to extend the same type of requirement to rules that could affect small businesses. Small businesses, after all, are the folks that are responsible for creating two-thirds, or about 70 percent, of the new jobs created nowadays. So anything that burdens these small businesses is something that is, by definition, bad for the economy and bad for job creation. This particular amendment, I think, improves the underlying legislation. It makes sense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which will further strengthen the RFA and ensure that agencies' decisions are supported by data. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act. In response to the previous gentleman's comments, I would just note that none of the regulations that we are considering today--the legislation--is going to do away with regulations altogether or even significantly, especially, regulations that have to do with people's safety. We are not trying to do anything that is going to affect the safety of the American people. We are just trying to make sure the regulations are smarter, and that is what this is all about. I am also pleased that title III of H.R. 5 is a bill that I sponsored last term and in this Congress--the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act. The Committee on Small Business, which I happen to chair, and the Committee on the Judiciary have crafted this bill with bipartisan input over many years. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for working with us on this important legislation, and I thank him for his leadership. Small businesses are found in every congressional district and in every industry. They provide livelihoods for millions of workers and for their families. Small businesses employ nearly half of the private sector workforce and generate two out of every three new jobs in the private sector today. The Federal Government should be doing everything it can to encourage these small but mighty job creators. Unfortunately, oppressive red tape has had the opposite effect of discouraging investment, expansion, and job growth. I am not saying that all regulations are bad, but there are too many rules. For too long, agencies have ignored their true effect, their true impact, on small businesses. Small businesses are at a real disadvantage because they have fewer resources and rarely have in-house counsel, the regulatory compliance staff that would be necessary to guide them through this maze. Generally, small businesses just don't have that. So shouldn't regulators, at the very least, examine the effects of new rules on small businesses and consider ways to reduce excessive burdens? Of course they should. There is a law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or the RFA, which requires agencies to conduct this commonsense assessment when they regulate. Even though the law has been on the books for over 36 years, agencies too frequently just ignore its requirements. The Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, which is title III in this bill, eliminates loopholes that agencies like the Internal Revenue Service have used to avoid compliance with the RFA. It also forces agencies to analyze not only the direct, but also the indirect effects of rules on small businesses, just as agencies are required to do when promulgating major rules affecting, for example, the environment. It gives small businesses additional opportunities for early input on proposed rules and regulations and strengthens the RFA's requirements for agencies to periodically review old rules. Nothing in our legislation today takes away an agency's ability to issue a rule or a regulation, but it will force the rulemakers to think carefully before they act. It is great legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be brief, and then I will invite my colleague from Virginia to respond. Just a couple of quick points. First of all, relative to this significant economic impact language that my distinguished colleague from Georgia is talking about, that is already in the existing law, so we are not changing anything there. We are not saying it ought to say a significant economic impact. It already says that in the existing law. Both the bureaucrats and the courts are used to determining what the terminology like ``significant'' means under the rule or regulation or the law, just as what a reasonable man is. ``Reasonable'' is quite common throughout the legal structure. We are also not giving discretion to Ms. McMahon, the soon-to-be head of the SBA. It is to the Chief Counsel, and he is independent. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), our chairman.

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

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, a longstanding position of the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has been that land management plans developed by the Forest Service and by the Bureau of Land Management are rules and that they are subject to analysis under the RFA. The same conclusion--that a land resource management plan is a rule--has been reached by the Government Accountability Office. Given the potentially significant consequences to small businesses that rely on public lands and small communities that border those lands, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management should assess the impacts of their plans on these small entities. That is all this does. We are saying: How is this going to affect small businesses? Seventy percent of the new jobs created in America are created by small businesses? Should we care about what the bureaucrats are doing, how it affects those folks that are creating all these jobs? Common sense says yes, we ought to do that. This bill already includes a reform to prepare those agencies to prepare regulatory flexibility analyses when they are developing changes to resource management plans to determine how small businesses and small communities would be affected. Striking this provision from the bill would do away with a needed reform for small businesses, such as farmers and ranchers and their small communities, especially those located in the Western United States, which contains the vast majority of Federal lands. I would also note that my esteemed colleague talks about Republicans trying to destroy health care in this country. That is obviously absurd. We are trying to save health care. We are trying to make sure that Americans aren't forced to pay a heck of a lot more and have higher deductions, things they can't afford. Plans right now they are in, they are paying for plans and oftentimes get zero health care out of those plans because the deductibles are now so high under ObamaCare that they can't even use it. I think there are a whole lot of people, when this was forced through this Congress on a purely partisan vote by my colleagues, the Democrats at that time, and by this President, there were a lot of Republicans who would have loved to have joined with them to do something to help people get health care who didn't have it. That is a worthy cause. But that could have been done without screwing up everybody else's health care in this country. That is what they failed to do when they did this. We are hoping, in a bipartisan way, we can work together to improve health care for lots of folks in this country. We will see if that is going to work out or not. I would also note that there is nobody on this side of the aisle who thinks we need no government at all, we need no regulations, we need no rules; but we don't want to overregulate the job creators in this country so that they can't create jobs. Those jobs that people don't get, those are real people; or people who get knocked out of that employment are real people, and they have families. We ought to be supporting them. Overregulation kills those jobs. I would finally note, relative to climate change, what we are saying is that if we are going to do something, let's do it in a smart manner. Let's not try to save some things and then knock thousands, probably millions of Americans out of their jobs. There is a smart way of doing it and there is a wrong way of doing it. We would like to do it the smart way. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 288, the Small Business Broadband Deployment Act. This commonsense, bipartisan legislation does two important things. First, it extends the temporary exemption granted to small businesses by the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, from the burdensome disclosure requirements for Internet service providers and the FCC's own Open Internet Order by 5 years. Second, it increases the number of small businesses that can utilize the exemption by raising the threshold from 100,000 subscribers to the much more realistic 250,000 subscribers. Small businesses frequently feel that the Federal Government exercises its most creativity in looking for new ways to get in their way. Oftentimes, small Internet providers are the only ones willing to take the risk and deploy broadband to particularly hard-to-reach areas of rural America. The last thing they have time for is the FCC imposing a greater regulatory burden on them, diverting precious resources to make Washington bureaucrats busy instead of doing what they do best, providing high quality broadband services to millions of Americans in every corner of our country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and help reduce a portion of the tedious regulatory burden on small businesses.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of H.R. 79, the bipartisan HALOS Act. As the chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I have the honor and pleasure of hearing and speaking with many of America's small-business owners and their employees almost every day. I hear case after case of small-business owners working days and nights and weekends. I hear stories of sacrifice. I hear inspiring stories of success. But all too often, I hear about how the government continues to make it difficult for small businesses to prosper and grow and create more jobs, which is, obviously, very important to our Nation and its economy. Perhaps one of the most common and most alarming concerns is just how difficult it is for entrepreneurs who are starting out to access the capital they need in order to grow. We must provide entrepreneurs a better way to build their businesses. The HALOS Act does just that. The Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act expands access to capital by ensuring small businesses are able to continue to connect and interact with angel investors. One popular way in which small businesses connect with angel investors is through demo days. These exciting events are sponsored by universities, nonprofits, local governments, and many other groups that allow entrepreneurs to showcase their products and informally meet investors and customers. However, SEC regulations are threatening to force these events out of business by imposing unwieldy regulations that dictate who is and who is not allowed to simply attend. These ill-considered regulations would force everybody who merely walks through the door to go through what is essentially a full financial examination--handing over tax documents, bank statements, paycheck information, and on and on. This just doesn't make sense. We should be encouraging participation in demo days, not creating obstacles. We should be allowing the largest group of attendees to gather in the room, not be limiting who can walk through the door. After all, not only are these events places to connect people with our communities' small businesses, but they also provide a great opportunity for our next generation of entrepreneurs to ask questions and learn what it takes for a business to open its doors and be successful. I thank Chairman Hensarling for his leadership as well as Representatives Sinema and Schneider for working in a cooperative and bipartisan manner. An identical bill, as the chairman mentioned, passed this House in the last session of Congress in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. We must continue to work together to create an environment in which our small businesses--the engines of our economy--grow and flourish. This bill is one more step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 79.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the service of Major Bishop Sparks, of the United States Army for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to our nation. Major Sparks distinguished himself through exceptionally meritorious service from January 6, 2014 to December 15, 2016, while serving as a Legislative Liaison for the Army House Liaison Division. Major Sparks was instrumental in developing strategic relationships with Members of Congress and their staffs throughout the 114th Congress as a Legislative Liaison to the House of Representatives. His expertise proved critical in providing requisite support for Army and DoD initiatives. Through these relationships he ensured Congressional decision makers had accurate and timely information on Army programs, policies and priorities; his hard work directly impacted future defense legislation and built upon the Army's equities. Major Bishop Sparks is a native of West Palm Beach, Florida. Bishop enlisted in the Wisconsin Army National Guard in 2003 as the Fire Direction Specialist (13P). Bishop graduated from Concordia University Wisconsin with a degree in Justice and Public Policy and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in 2006. After completion of the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Major Sparks was assigned to the 2-2nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. While assigned to 2-2nd Infantry Regiment, Major Sparks served as a Company Fire Support Officer. Major Sparks was later assigned to 1-6th Field Artillery, 1st Infantry Division. While assigned to 1-6th Field Artillery, Major Sparks served as a Platoon Leader and Executive Officer deploying in support of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM from July 2008 through July 2009. In 2009, Major Sparks attended the Field Artillery Captain's Career Course (FACCC). After graduating the FACCC, Major Sparks was assigned to 1-12th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division where he served as a Battalion Fire Support Officer and deployed in support of OPERATION NEW DAWN in January 2011. While deployed, Major Sparks assumed command of Bravo Battery, 2-82nd Field Artillery, 1st Cavalry Division. Following battery command, Captain Sparks attended George Washington University earning a master's degree in Legislative Affairs and served as a Congressional Fellow for Congressman Hank Johnson (GA-4). Bishop currently serves as a Legislative Liaison for the Office of the Chief, Legislative Liaison (OCLL). Bishop's military education includes the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Ranger School, Joint Fire Power Course, Tactical Information Officer Course, the Field Artillery Captain's Career Course, and Airborne School. Bishop also graduated from Liberty University with a master's degree in Business Management and Leadership. Major Sparks' awards include the Bronze Star Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal Army Achievement Medal with 1 Oak Leaf Cluster, National Defense Service Medal, Afghan Campaign Medal, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal (Expeditionary), Global War on Terrorism Medal (Service), Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, NATO Medal, Parachutist Badge, and the Ranger Tab, Major Sparks' professionalism and high standards of duty improved relations between the Army and the House of Representatives. Major Sparks' leadership, initiative and truly outstanding performance contributed immeasurably to maintaining the Army's enduring, positive relationship with Congress and advancing the Army's top priorities, bringing distinct credit upon him, the Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, and the United States Army. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the selfless service of Major Bishop Sparks as he proceeds to the next chapter in his remarkable career and continues to serve our great Nation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, last night, my alma mater, the La Salle Lancers, did it again. They won their third straight Ohio high school football championship. By the way, my brother Dave and I both played for La Salle back in the day. La Salle faced a tough Massillon Perry team in the championship game for the second straight season. The Lancers' back-to-back-to-back championships capped off a historic 2016 football season in which La Salle won its first outright GCL South championship, and became the first ever three-peat Division II champions in Ohio playoff history. I also want to wish one of La Salle's rival teams, the St. X Bombers, the best in their quest to win the Division I championship this evening. Again, congratulations to all of the La Salle players and their families, to Coach Jim Hilvert and his coaching staff, and to everyone involved with the Lancer football program. You have all made the entire Cincinnati area extremely proud. Lancers roll deep.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong support of this conference report because it provides for our national defense and also supports America's small businesses. As was mentioned, as chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, I have seen firsthand just how vital small businesses are in providing the Department of Defense with the goods and services it needs in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Also included within this conference report are contracting reforms which will provide small businesses with greater access to defense contracting opportunities, as well as extend such important programs as the SBIR and the STTR research programs. Finally, this conference report calls on agencies to provide cybersecurity resources to small businesses to protect themselves from cyber attacks which are becoming a greater and greater threat to businesses all across this country and really all across the world. I want to thank Chairman Thornberry for his hard work and his leadership. He has done a tremendous job in getting this crucial legislation finally across the finish line. I also want to thank all the members of the Small Business Committee. Many of the small business provisions included within this report came out of our committee with strong--if not unanimous--bipartisan support. Working together through regular order, we have been able to strengthen the small business industrial base which is so fundamental to the health of our Nation as a whole. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank all the members of Mr. Thornberry's committee for their hard work on this. It is really a job well done.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Goodlatte has done an excellent job there, and we appreciate the work on this bill and many other things as well. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5982, the Midnight Rules Relief Act, introduced by my friend and colleague from California (Mr. Issa). Over the last 8 years, the Obama administration has gone, let's face it, on a regulatory rampage. Each year, the administration's major rules have cost over $100 billion--$100 billion. A disproportionate share of those enormous costs have fallen on America's 28 million small businesses. As chairman of the House Small Business Committee, I have heard firsthand from the owners and employees of these small businesses in our hearing room, and also back home in my district in Cincinnati, Ohio, how these new regulations have harmed them personally. And I want to emphasize that it doesn't just hurt the owner of the small business, but all those folks who work for him. Sometimes that is two people, three people, five people, ten people. It affects them and their families, and generally it is very adversely. I think it is critical we realize that about 70 percent of the new jobs created in the American economy nowadays are created by these small businesses that, basically, have had these regulations that this administration has imposed on them. It is like a wet blanket over them and over this economy. So this particular legislation is absolutely critical. It is critical that we pass it. The last thing that these small businesses need right now is a flood of new regulations from the President's army of bureaucrats as they beat a hasty retreat out of Washington. Outgoing Presidents oftentimes push through new regulations in the final days of their administrations to lock in as much of their agenda as possible. Let's face it, on election day, that agenda was, for the most part, rejected. And to allow an administration to impose even more bureaucracy and more regulations on the small business community and on the American people is just something that we should not allow to happen. That is why this legislation has been introduced. These so-called midnight rules are thrown together hastily with little analysis or regard for the costs and burdens that they will impose on America's entrepreneurs. Sadly, the administration has given every indication that they will be ramping up, not slowing down, the red tape dispenser over the next 9 weeks. This commonsense, bipartisan legislation will give Congress, the elected representatives of the American people after all, the power to stop all midnight rules with one vote. Next weekend, we will celebrate Small Business Saturday, an opportunity to celebrate small businesses, and recognize that they are a key to making our economy succeed. Midnight regulations are an imminent threat to their success. So let's not spoil Small Business Saturday by having a whole bunch of new regulations, new red tape, new things that they have to deal with other than actually doing things which will make their business successful so that they can actually make a profit and hire more people. Let's not allow the bureaucrats here in Washington to spoil that. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and send a clear message to our small businesses all across America that we have their back and regulatory relief is on the way.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5711. I want to the commend my colleagues, Congressmen Huizenga and Sherman, for authoring this bipartisan piece of legislation. It was once said that the West would sell its enemies the rope that would be used to hang itself with. Well, because of the disastrously flawed Iran deal, that is exactly what we are currently doing. That is why this legislation is so important. H.R. 5711 essentially prevents the export or reexport of commercial passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This bill would cut off Iran's means of delivering weapons to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, and to Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad, a war criminal who is responsible for the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. The truth is we wouldn't even need to be here today if the Obama administration had just paid attention to the facts on the ground in the Middle East. When negotiating the disastrous Iran nuclear deal, despite knowing Iran was the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, President Obama and Secretary Kerry permitted the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran anyway. Incredibly, under current U.S. law, if we issued a license for Iran Air to purchase aircraft from an American manufacturer and then Iran walked away from its commitment, U.S. taxpayers would have to foot the bill for Iran. In this case, that could be up to $70 billion on the U.S. taxpayer. Given Iran Air's multiple unpaid commitments over the years, that outrageous outcome is entirely possible. So for all of the reasons that I have mentioned and for reasons that have been stated already by my colleagues, I would urge clear-minded people on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Burgess. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for her very kind remarks, and I think she is absolutely right. He was somebody who did work in truly a bipartisan way, and that is one of the things I think we will all remember him for as much or more than anything else. I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce). He took Steve's place and is now the current Member who represents the 14th District of Ohio.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), from the Sixth Congressional District.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I say to Congressman Gibson, as usual, Steve LaTourette was right, although I think it is a fine jacket. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).