Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the other champion along with Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers on our side, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 6186, the Follow the Rules Act. I appreciate the hard work done by Representative Duffy of Wisconsin and by Mr. Connolly of Virginia in taking the lead in introducing this legislation and then in working diligently and in a bipartisan manner to achieve its passage. This bill would clarify that an employee who refuses to obey an order that would require the employee to violate the law, a rule, or a regulation is protected from retaliation under the Whistleblower Protection Act. In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling that is contrary to the Whistleblower Protection Act and that is contrary to congressional intent. As Mr. Gosar of Arizona previously laid out the facts, in Rainey v. MSPB, the court ruled that an employee who refuses to obey an order is protected only if the order would violate a statute but that the employee would not be protected if the order would simply violate a rule or a regulation. This ruling incorrectly interprets congressional intent. Employees should be protected from retaliation if they do the right thing. That includes refusing to obey orders that would violate an agency's rules and regulations, as well as statutes. It is more critical than ever that we send a message to Federal employees that they have the right to do their jobs free from political pressure to bend or to violate the rules. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6302, the Overtime Pay for Secret Service Agents Act of 2016, which was approved by our committee unanimously by a voice vote. This legislation would authorize an increase in the current pay cap up to Level II of the Executive Schedule so that Secret Service agents are permitted to receive compensation for the hours of overtime they worked in 2016. As the chairman has indicated, the Presidential campaign of 2016 has been a year of extraordinary challenges and strain on the Secret Service. The Secret Service has provided information to the committee indicating that more than 1,000 Secret Service agents--one-third of the agents on board--have worked so many hours that they maxed out their annual overtime and salary. Some agents started working overtime for free as of early June and are exceeding the pay cap by as many as $50,000 to $60,000 per agent. Current law prohibits them from receiving any additional overtime pay, and that is what this bill is intended to fix for calendar year 2016. These spikes in overtime are a necessary factor in these election campaigns. As we know, there were 16 Republican candidates in the primary, and all received Secret Service protection, as well as several candidates on the Democratic side. There were countless stops across the country over the months of our campaigns, and I don't think there is any way to avoid the need for overtime. I am glad that this is a bipartisan bill, but every 4 years we have to have agents working without pay. There has got to be a way that we can estimate roughly what the overtime needs will be every 4 years and incorporate something that at least eliminates the need to have Secret Service agents working for free in a very dangerous job. I think we can figure that out. I had a proposal in committee to make this an every-4-year thing and incorporate that. It did not succeed. But I am hoping that, in a bipartisan manner with the chairman and my Republican colleagues on the committee, we can solve this. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, ZIP Codes are used to organize our country to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of the mail to millions of Americans. The Postal Service has the authority to establish ZIP Codes and to adjust their boundaries based on changes in delivery and volume or operational concerns. However, communities, businesses, and other local entities can also voice their concerns about ZIP Code boundaries and petition for corresponding adjustments. H.R. 6303 would make such adjustments by requiring the Postal Service to establish new ZIP Codes for five communities that have each requested, and subsequently been denied, ZIP Code changes. These communities have based their ZIP Code requests on delays in mail delivery and emergency service response times, the denial or inconsistent application of services to their communities, and other similar community concerns. These are important issues and they should be addressed accordingly. The Postal Service has worked with affected communities to find solutions, and I commend those efforts by the Postal Service. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has also worked to find solutions to these concerns in its proposed postal reform legislation, and, in fact, most of these would receive unique ZIP Codes as part of that bill. That is why I support H.R. 6303 today. Finally, I want to highlight my strong support for the language in this bill before us today that would name ten post offices after honorable men and women, all of whom made important contributions to our Nation. Individual legislation allowing for the naming of those postal facilities has already passed the House and is simply awaiting action in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), one of the other champions of this legislation.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5384, the Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2016. I agree with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) that this is a commonsense, good government bill about cutting waste. This bill would allow the Government Publishing Office to avoid sending printed copies of the Federal Register to Members of Congress and other Federal offices, unless those offices actually want the printed copies. Of course, the Federal Register would continue to be available online. This bill would be good for the environment and good for taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill would save about $1 million a year. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5384. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I support this bipartisan bill, which simply makes a technical correction to clarify that the Administrator of the General Services Administration is responsible for managing mail in the executive branch. The Administrator of the GSA has historically had this responsibility. When the Federal Records Act was updated in 2014, changes made to the statute made it unclear whether the Administrator's role had changed. This bill makes clear that Congress never intended to take away the GSA Administrator's authority to manage the executive mail. In closing, I would like to especially thank Representative Steve Russell from Oklahoma and Representative Gerry Connolly from Virginia for their excellent work that they put into this legislation, and I hope that the Senate will take it up before the end of this Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Thomas P. Traylor, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the healthcare community in the City of Boston and across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and to commend him for thirty-eight years of service to Boston Medical Center. Throughout Tom Traylor's career, in his roles as Vice President at Boston Medical Center, Vice President of Boston Medical Center's HealthNet Plan, Commissioner of Boston's Department of Health and Hospitals, and Chief Financial Officer of Boston's Department of Health and Hospitals, he was the ever-present, creative force driving health coverage and access for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dedicating 38 years of service to this mission. During that time, Tom inspired Massachusetts to participate in its critical first Medicaid 1115 Waiver to expand health coverage to the neediest populations in the Commonwealth. He was engaged in the design of each of the six succeeding waivers, directly impacting Massachusetts Medicaid for over twenty years. Tom was instrumental in creating funding models and mechanisms to support coverage expansion and the ability of Boston Medical Center and other safety net hospitals to continue to provide quality care to low income populations. And Tom's deep commitment to provide healthcare and coverage to our most vulnerable residents inspired him to create the BMC HealthNet plan, now one of the highest rated Medicaid plans in the country serving people in Massachusetts and in New Hampshire. Tom's successful collaboration with the multiple state administrations, Massachusetts legislature, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Congressional delegation helped bring billions of dollars in funding to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for access and coverage for low income populations. For all of his efforts, Tom was recognized nationally as a leader in his field and served as Chair of the National Association of Public Hospitals, and its successor organization America's Essential Hospitals. Tom's deep understanding of the potential of the Medicaid Waiver, as well as the politics and policy surrounding it, were the keys to success that enabled Boston Medical Center, and other safety net hospitals in Massachusetts, to grow and expand, leveraging federal support for access and coverage for residents of Boston and around the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to take the floor of the House today to thank Tom Traylor for his remarkable commitment to Boston Medical Center and the people of Boston and Massachusetts. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Thomas P. Traylor's efforts and dedicated service to others.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1004, the Veterans Day Moment of Silence Act. I am proud to have introduced the House version of this bill, H.R. 995. This bipartisan legislation calls for two minutes of silence every Veterans Day. The set time of 2:11 P.M., Eastern Standard Time, will allow all Americans from coast to coast and Puerto Rico to come together as one nation to reflect on the service of our veterans, past and present. Generations of brave men and women have served the United States of America with honor, risking their lives to keep us safe and free. They deserve our support and, especially, our gratitude. Mr. Speaker, our servicemembers have made, and continue to make, immense sacrifices. They leave their loved ones behind, operate in some of the most dangerous places in the world, and put themselves in harm's way to defend our nation. I have had the honor and pleasure of meeting with servicemembers during my Congressional Delegations abroad. I am always moved by their professionalism, courage, and most especially, their dedication to their families, fellow service members, and country. This Moment of Silence legislation will send a powerful message of appreciation to our veterans for all that they do on behalf of our nation. I would like to express my thanks to the leadership of the Veterans Affairs Committee, as well as to the bipartisan group of cosponsors who were steadfast in their support of H.R. 995. I am grateful to Senators Kirk and Durbin for their leadership and stewardship of this initiative on the Senate side. I also wish to thank Daniel and Michael Bendetson, along with their father, Dr. Peter Bendetson, who first approached me with the concept of this tribute and have worked tirelessly for years to bring this proposal to fruition. Finally, I would like to thank all the veterans in the Eighth District of Massachusetts and across America, in whose honor I am proud to have introduced and supported the Veterans Day Moment of Silence Act. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3779, the Social Security Fraud Prevention Act of 2016, as amended. As my colleague, the gentleman from Utah, has noted, this bipartisan legislation has been introduced by Representative David Valadao and cosponsored by Mr. Swalwell, both from California. This bill would strengthen efforts to prevent identity theft. In particular, it would prohibit Federal agencies from including the Social Security number of any individual on documents sent in the U.S. mail, unless an agency head determines that it is absolutely necessary to do so. Also, through regulations, agencies would, in the future, specify the precise circumstances under which they would need to include Social Security numbers in printed and mailed documents inside the envelope. This bill would also require agencies to partially redact Social Security numbers, where feasible, and restrict the visibility of Social Security numbers on the outside of any package sent by mail. As reported by the Department of Justice, nearly 18 million Americans are victims of identity theft per year. According to the 2016 Identity Fraud Study conducted by the Javelin Strategy & Research firm, identity theft has resulted in losses exceeding $112 billion over the last 6 years alone. That amounts to $35,600 stolen per minute over the last 6 years. The Javelin study also indicates that, as the U.S. continues to convert to chip-enabled credit card technology, identity thieves have become increasingly reliant on the creation of fraudulent customer accounts. This illicit practice is greatly enabled by the accessibility and exposure of Social Security numbers. Moreover, the announcement last week by Yahoo that the account information of at least 500 million users had been stolen by hackers back in 2014 is the latest example of the massive data breaches that we are continuing to experience in both the private and public sectors. In light of the complexity and frequency of these cyber attacks, it is imperative that we take commonsense steps at the Federal level to protect personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, against misuse. During our committee's investigation, as the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the gentleman from Utah, has noted, of the critical breaches of information technology systems at the Office of Personnel Management in 2015, we discovered that the agency had not encrypted the Social Security numbers of over 20 million employees. We are similarly behind the curve when it comes to safeguarding Social Security information sent by Federal agencies in the mail. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Fraud Prevention Act is a practical piece of legislation that enjoys support on both sides of the aisle. It has also received strong endorsements from organizations such as the American Association of Retired Persons, or AARP, and the National Retiree Legislative Network. Publicly, I want to thank Mr. Valadao and Mr. Swalwell for their leadership in this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from California, the lead sponsor of this bill, has just arrived, and I want to publicly thank him, as well as the gentleman from Illinois who just spoke. I appreciate his leadership. He joined with Mr. Swalwell on our side of the aisle. And I agree, this is a long time coming. It should have been done years ago. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Boston Light, the first American Aid to Navigation, on its 300th anniversary. As was originally proclaimed even before our nation's birth: ``Whereas the want of a Lighthouse at the entrance of the harbor of Boston, hath been a great discouragement to Navigation, by the loss of the lives and estates of several of His Majesties subjects,'' an Act for building and maintaining a lighthouse at the entrance of the harbor of Boston was passed by the Great and General Court or Assembly of His Majesties Province of Massachusetts Bay in New England in 1715 for prevention whereof. The Boston Light was first lit on September 14, 1716, almost 60 years before the Declaration of Independence was signed. Since then, the lighthouse has stood a faithful watch over Boston Harbor, helping the City of Boston to become a thriving international port and laying the foundation for the U.S. Coast Guard's Aids to Navigation mission. Among its many missions as the maritime service responsible for the safety, security, and stewardship of American waterways, Aids to Navigation is the Coast Guard's oldest mission, and that mission started with the Boston Light. That lone lighthouse on Little Brewster Island gave rise to the world-class system of U.S. Coast Guard Aids to Navigation that includes more than 48,000 buoys, beacons, ranges, sound signals, and electronic aids that safely guide thousands of vessels a day sailing on our nation's 25,000 miles of waterways. Around the nation, the Coast Guard's system of Aids to Navigation keeps the American economy on course by enabling marine cargo transportation that generated $4.6 trillion of economic activity and accounted for more than a quarter of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2015. The Boston Light is also the Coast Guard's only lighthouse that still has a Keeper assigned. For the last 13 years, that has been Sally Snowman, the 70th Boston Light Keeper and the first woman to hold the position in three centuries. This Weymouth, Massachusetts native proudly keeps the light shining today. Sally is among the more than 2,500 Aids to Navigation Professionals, made up of Active Duty Coast Guardsmen and Coast Guard civilians serving at the U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Area, District, and Sector Waterways Management Offices. In addition, Aids to Navigation professionals are aboard 75 cutters, and at 64 Aids to Navigation Teams across the nation who maintain the Aids to Navigation that save lives, protect property, and enable commerce by ensuring safe, secure, and resilient waterways. Mr. Speaker, the Boston Light has served our nation well for 300 years and the men and women of the Coast Guard proudly uphold its legacy of light today. It is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to honor the Boston Light on its tri-centennial anniversary and to honor the U.S. Coast Guard personnel who continue to guide our mariners through our vital waterways.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5424, the so- called ``Investment Advisers Modernization Act of 2016.'' Regrettably, instead of modernizing the regulation of investment advisors, as the bill's title suggests, the legislation under consideration today would take us back to a time when there was minimal transparency and reporting requirements for private firms such as private equity and hedge funds. Over the past few months, I have been following the New York Times investigative series that exposed abuses by the private equity industry that impact our daily lives. I am concerned that private equity firms are now overtaking our fire departments, our ambulance services, our public water services, and our mortgage market. The influence of these private firms in services that traditionally have been provided by our government is resulting in slower reaction times for emergency services, aggressive collection practices, and the type of foreclosure abuse that we saw before the 2008 financial crisis. Given the increased influence of these firms in our daily lives, it is critical that we do not roll back crucial oversight and transparency requirements through this legislation. I served on the Financial Services Committee during the 2008 financial crisis. I witnessed the harmful impact that the lack of regulation had on hard-working families around our nation. I had the honor of helping to reform our financial system through the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (The Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act increased the transparency of private funds by requiring increased reporting and compliance requirements. Unfortunately, this legislation would destroy much of the hard work we did through the Dodd-Frank Act. According to Americans for Financial Reform, the regulatory exemptions included in this bill would enable the exploitation of investors and would reduce the information available to regulators to address systemic risk. Specifically, this harmful legislation removes certain requirements made applicable by the Dodd-Frank Act to investment advisers to private equity funds and hedge funds, so that they do not have to notify their investors of ownership changes, report certain information on large private equity funds in their systemic risk reports to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or annually deliver plain-text disclosures to clients. It also exempts these private funds from the annual independent audit requirement, which was strengthened by the Securities and Exchange Commission following the Bernie Madoff scandal. A quarter of the investments in private equity funds comes from public pensions, which invest the retirement savings of our nation's teachers and firefighters. We cannot repeal these important protections for our nation's public servants. In closing, this harmful bill would provide regulatory relief for an industry that needs more regulation. It is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. This is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my colleagues in support of today's vote on S. 2040, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Next week, our nation will mark the 15th anniversary of the September 11th attacks. The United States suffered an immeasurable tragedy that day, but for the victims and their families, their loss was even more profound. Their lives were irrevocably changed that day, and their road to healing has been made all the more difficult by the questions that remain unanswered and by the justice that has yet to be served. S. 2040, along with its House companion bill H.R. 3815, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would go a long way in providing answers to the victims and their families. In pursuing civil claims against terrorists, as well as those who aided and abetted them, we will be able to ensure greater transparency. The process of trying civil suits in a court of law would bring to light new evidence about how those events came about including identifying the money flows to the hijackers, as well as any connections the perpetrators had to foreign government officials. Ultimately, it will help to provide a more complete story of the September 11th attacks, not only of what happened that day, but also of what happened in the days leading up to them. I have worked over the last number of years with my colleagues Congressman Walter Jones and Congressman Thomas Massie in calling for the declassification of the 28 pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into Intelligence Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001. In doing so, I have also had the honor and privilege of getting to know some of the families who lost loved ones during the attacks. These families need and deserve answers and justice. Their representatives in Congress should be working tirelessly to give them that. The release of the 28 pages earlier this summer was an important first step in getting answers for the families. Passing JASTA today, and getting it enacted, would be an equally important next step towards getting justice for the victims, survivors and their families.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 494, the vote on the Motion to Recommit H.R. 5424, the Investment Advisers Modernization Act of 2016, had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye.'' Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 495, the vote on Final Passage of H.R. 5424, the Investment Advisers Modernization Act of 2016, had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to John and Susan Burke who will be celebrating their 50th Wedding Anniversary on August 6, 2016. John and Susan were married at Saint Gregory's Church in Dorchester, MA. on August 6, 1966. Susan attended St. Gregory's High School and graduated from Boston State Teachers College. John grew up in South Boston, attended Boston Technical High School, graduated from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and served our country in the U.S. Army for three years. Upon his return home, John worked for the Boston Edison Company and was former Congressman Joe Moakley's Administrative Assistant. John and Susan are proud parents of their two daughters, Courtney Murray and Patricia Lombardozzi and are blessed with five grandsons; Michael, Patrick and John Murray and Declan and Luke Lombardozzi as well their two son-in-laws, Tim Murray and Santiago Lombardozzi. Mr. Speaker, I have known John and his brothers, Gerry, Kevin, Tim, Patrick and Brian for nearly four decades, they are a proud South Boston family. It is truly an honor and a pleasure to be able to share in this joyous occasion with a great couple and a wonderful family. I know that John and Susan are looking forward to celebrating their 50 years of marriage next month with their friends and family and I want to again congratulate them both on this wondrous occasion.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote number 440 on H. Res. 822. I mistakenly recorded my vote as yes when I should have voted no.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4992, the so-called United States Financial System Protection Act of 2016. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4992 would directly violate our commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There is no question about that. By reimposing the secondary sanctions on Iran's banking sector, we clearly violate the terms of that JCPOA. These are not transactions between the U.S. and Iran, but, rather, these are banking transactions that occur outside the U.S. financial system. These sanctions were lifted on implementation day, according to the agreement, but only after we put International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in place in Iran, on the ground, to verify Iran's compliance with the deal. That verification and reporting occurs on a monthly basis. The last report we have from the IAEA, who are on the ground in Iran, is that they are, indeed, in full compliance with the terms of the JCPOA which addressed their nuclear program. Critics of the JCPOA will tell you that this bill is needed to ensure that Iran does not gain access to the U.S. financial system. Yet the administration has made clear that we are not going to reinstate the U- turn authorization or grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system. And, during the JCPOA talks, the U.S. stood firm that our sanctions against Iran's weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, and support for terrorism were not on the table. They were not part of that agreement. And our primary trade embargo on Iran, with certain limited exceptions, is still in place. Now, critics of the JCPOA will also tell you that the license that has been granted to Boeing to sell civilian passenger aircraft to Iran is really a subterfuge and that Iran is going to use these commercial jetliners to transport weapons or personnel in a military capacity. They ignore the fact that Iran already has military combat aircraft that they purchased from Russia. So there is no need for Iran to buy Airbus aircraft from the EU or Boeing aircraft from the United States in order to fund their military, their air force. So that is clearly not something that they are trying to do. Like I said, they could buy directly from the Russian Government, as they have done in the past and they continue to do, combat aircraft. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that exactly 1 year after the U.S. and the P5+1 announced the landmark JCPOA that Congress is voting to undermine it. The bills on the floor this week are an attempt to undermine that by opponents of this deal and have another bite of the apple and try to bring down the agreement. I would like to remind my fellow Members that we have debated this already and the House and Senate failed to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. That deal is done. And, so far, even according to high- level Israeli officials, Iran remains in compliance with that agreement. We should focus instead on ensuring that this is fully implemented and that our inspectors have a full and fair opportunity to maintain that Iran is indeed in compliance. The global community, as a result of this agreement, will be in a better position to know and to respond sooner and with the benefit of having vast, detailed intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. We are there, we are on the ground like never before. Iran has removed over two-thirds of its centrifuges and placed them under international supervision. That is a cut of nearly 14,000. It stopped enriching uranium and removed nuclear material from Fordow, one of its major facilities. It has cut its fissile material stockpile by 98 percent, from 12,000 kilograms to less than 300 kilograms of only non-weapons-grade material. The heavy water reactor at Arak has been rendered unusable for nuclear purposes. Finally, the JCPOA has verifiably delayed any possible path Iran may have to a nuclear weapon. Enacting this bill, H.R. 4992, or any of these anti-Iran-nuclear-deal bills would give Iran's hardliners the very excuse that they want to rip up the JCPOA, kick out the IAEA inspectors on the agreement, and race toward getting a nuclear bomb.

Mr. LYNCH. If we do sabotage this deal, will we be able to count on the backup from the global community to bring Iran back into line? It is a risk I believe is dangerous and, in this case, unnecessary. I urge my fellow Members to defeat H.R. 4992.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I have three bills that I am a cosponsor of-- reasonable bills. One is to stop suspects on the terrorist watch list from acquiring firearms; one is to require universal background checks so that we are sure that the people who do buy firearms are psychologically capable of doing so; and another bill to study the health impacts of gun violence in America. All across my district, I have received many, many, many, many calls. From the streets of Dorchester and South Boston and the North End in the city of Boston to the historic cities of Quincy and Brockton, the city of champions; from the beautiful towns in the north of my district, like Norwood and Dedham and Walpole and Westwood to the south shore towns of Scituate, Abington, Hingham, Cohasset, and Hull, it is pretty near unanimous in my district. And the people that I represent would like to have a vote on this issue. I think that is our job, that is our duty, and we should get to the business of taking up these bills and giving the people of the United States a vote on these issues.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, let me again thank Mr. Pittenger for his great work and also Ms. Maxine Waters' tremendous work. I thank Mr. Fitzpatrick again for his leadership. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am very pleased to rise, along with my colleagues Chairman Michael Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania; our vice chair, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger); the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez); and also the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), in support of H.R. 5594, a bill that will build on the administration's commendable efforts to counter the financing of terrorism. I would note that the proposal before us today, of which I am a cosponsor, also builds off of previous bipartisan legislation, led by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and former Financial Services Committee Chairman, Spencer Bachus. Together, their legislation, enacted in 1998, called for the creation of a national anti-money laundering strategy and laid the groundwork for the legislation that we present here today. Thanks to the continued leadership of Representative Velazquez and the work of members of the Financial Services Committee's Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, which was created by the full committee chairman, Mr. Hensarling of Texas, and joined by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), our government will be required to continue its efforts to stay ahead of the evolving methods that terrorists and other bad actors use to conceal the movement of illicit funds. Specifically, the national strategy that will be developed as part of this legislation will require a comprehensive assessment of the threats, goals, objectives, and priorities for preventing and disrupting illicit finance, and it will promote efforts to detect and prosecute the financing of terrorism. Moreover, this legislation includes a requirement to assess the ways in which we can strengthen the role of the private sector, enhance public-private partnerships to disrupt illicit finance, and most effectively enhance intergovernmental coordination. Our legislation also calls on the administration to assess the adequacy of funding dedicated to meeting anti-money laundering/ counterterrorist financing challenges, and assess how best to leverage technology and other data to fight against the financing of terror. As the Islamic State and other terrorist groups continue to demonstrate their capacity and willingness to export heinous acts of violence to every corner of the globe and inspire attacks here in the United States, the need to have an effective strategy to counter the financing of these activities is now more important than ever. In closing, I would like to thank House Financial Services Committee Chair Jeb Hensarling and Ranking Member Maxine Waters for the creation of the Financial Services Committee's Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing. I would also like to again thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick; the gentleman from North Carolina, Vice Chair Robert Pittenger; and the rest of my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee for the enthusiasm and energy with which they have carried out the mandate of the task force. Our work has been a truly bipartisan effort, and I look forward to the opportunity to build on these efforts in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), one of our lead cosponsors on this legislation.