John Ratcliffe

Mr. RATCLIFFE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today the House is considering H.R. 5877, the United States-Israel Advanced Research Partnership Act of 2016. Israel is our strongest and most trusted ally in the Middle East, and I am grateful to join with the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my friend, in working to expand and strengthen this bond through long-term collaboration on cybersecurity efforts between our countries. H.R. 5877 builds on decades of partnership with the State of Israel by amending current law to authorize the Under Secretary of the Science and Technology Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to enter into cooperative research activities with Israel. H.R. 5877 also amends the U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 by further formalizing the program and by adding cybersecurity to the list of research areas authorized under the act. The U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014 currently authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct cooperative research programs to enhance Israel's capabilities in border security, explosives detection, and emergency services. My bill now adds cybersecurity to that important list. Mr. Speaker, violence and instability in the Middle East present significant challenges for Israel as our major strategic partner in that region of the world, and enhancing collaboration between our countries is, therefore, essential to ensuring Israel's continued ability to defend herself. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation following an in-depth congressional delegation that I led to Israel earlier this year, along with my colleague, Mr. Langevin. While there, we were able to meet with Israel's top national security figures, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to discuss homeland security and cybersecurity threats to the United States and Israel, and to develop strategies for better cooperation in defending against these threats. Mr. Langevin and I also met with Israel's cybersecurity firms to learn about their efforts and to discuss the potential application of these innovative technologies to U.S. homeland security. In recent years, Israel's tech sector has been booming with cybersecurity and technology startups, and many United States tech companies now have a presence in Israel. Much of Israel's success in the tech sector results from its development of a very robust cyber workforce, and we discussed ways to apply these lessons here in the United States. The United States and Israel share a joint recognition that cybersecurity is national security, and that our two nations must closely partner to combat these growing threats. This is exactly why I was so pleased to be able to introduce H.R. 5877, the United States- Israel Advanced Research Partnership Act of 2016, and why I also express my strong support for Mr. Langevin's bill, H.R. 5843, the United States-Israel Cybersecurity Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2016. I thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Langevin, for his bipartisan partnership on these very important bills. As the co-founder and cochairman of the bipartisan Cybersecurity Caucus, he has long been a leader on cybersecurity issues here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I also thank Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and subcommittee Ranking Member Richmond for their help in getting this legislation across the finish line today. I also thank Chairman Royce and the staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their assistance in moving the legislation to the floor today. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, November 14, 2016. Hon. Michael McCaul, Chairman, House Committee on Homeland Security. Dear Chairman McCaul: Thank you for consulting with the Foreign Affairs Committee regarding H.R. 5877, the United States-Israel Advanced Research Partnership Act of 2016. I agree that the Foreign Affairs Committee may be discharged from further consideration of that measure, so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor. I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding that forgoing further action on this measure does not in any way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or prejudice its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the future. I also request your support for the appointment of Foreign Affairs conferees to any House- Senate conference on this legislation. I ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your committee report, and also in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill. Sincerely, Edward R. Royce, Chairman.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I again thank Congressman Langevin for his kind words and for his leadership in connection with this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank Congressman Langevin, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5877. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5843) to establish a grant program at the Department of Homeland Security to promote cooperative research and development between the United States and Israel on cybersecurity, as amended.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my colleague, Mr. Langevin, for offering this very important piece of legislation today. As I mentioned earlier, both H.R. 5843 and H.R. 5877 were the result of our successful congressional delegation to the State of Israel, where we heard and learned firsthand about the importance of strong collaboration between our two nations--the United States and Israel. This legislation further builds on the existing agreements between the United States and Israel by authorizing the Secretary to carry out a grant program to bolster the cyber defenses of both countries. It is vitally important that the United States and Israel have robust and innovative cyber defenses in order to stay ahead of our adversaries, and this legislation will help ensure that that is achieved. Again, I thank Mr. Langevin and his staff for their partnership on this very important issue, and I urge all Members to join me in supporting this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Langevin for his kind words. I would also like to congratulate him on his hard work and his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Langevin, and I urge my colleagues to support his bill, H.R. 5843. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5391) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance certain duties of the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be considering H.R. 5391, the Gains in Global Nuclear Detection Architecture Act of 2016. H.R. 5391 directs the Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, or DNDO, to develop and maintain documentation that provides information on how the Office's research investments align with gaps in the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture as well as the research challenges identified by the DNDO Director. This bill further directs DNDO to document the rationale for selecting research topics and to develop a systematic approach for evaluating how the outcomes of the Office's individual research projects collectively contribute to addressing these research challenges. Mr. Speaker, as the attacks in Paris, Brussels, and Turkey have shown, ISIS is accelerating its attacks on innocent people throughout the world. Individuals in this country have been inspired by ISIS to commit heinous acts and crimes on our soil, murdering 49 innocent souls in Orlando, Florida, and 14 more in San Bernardino, California. Just this summer, 6 men were convicted in Tbilisi, Georgia, of trying to sell uranium-238; and in January, three members of a criminal group were detained for trying to sell cesium-137--both of which could be used to make a dirty bomb. Mr. Speaker, we must absolutely ensure that terrorists never get their hands on radioactive materials, and this bill will enhance DNDO's ability to provide radiation detection devices specifically aimed at preventing terrorists from being able to obtain enough radioactive material to construct a dirty bomb. This bill will ensure that the research topics DNDO chooses to invest in to enhance our ability to detect smuggled nuclear materials are aligned with the gaps that have been identified in the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, a multi-agency framework for detecting, analyzing, and reporting on nuclear and other radioactive materials that are out of regulatory control. Requiring DNDO to document the rationale for choosing research topics will ensure that the most important gaps in the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture are addressed. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this measure today. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Richmond, and his team for the terrific work they have done to bring this legislation to the floor today. I believe that this bill will better enable this country to detect the smuggling of nuclear materials and will support the very critical mission of preventing ISIS and other terrorists from carrying out a nuclear or radiological attack on American soil. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I, once again, would like to commend and congratulate my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), for this very important national security bill. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5391. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5064, the Improving Small Business Cyber Security Act of 2016. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna) for leading the charge on this very important piece of legislation. I also thank Chairman Chabot for his leadership on the Small Business Committee and Chairman McCaul for his leadership on the Committee on Homeland Security. Mr. Speaker, American small businesses are on the frontlines in the battle against cybercriminals, but right now many of them lack the resources to combat this growing and sophisticated threat. America's 28 million small businesses constitute 54 percent of our annual sales here in the United States and, because of that, they are under cyber attack like never before. The frequency and high costs of such attacks on small businesses is causing ripple effects throughout our economy right now. H.R. 5064 amends the Homeland Security Act to ensure that Small Business Development Centers can leverage existing cybersecurity programs at the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, this bill requires the Department of Homeland Security and the Small Business Administration to jointly develop a cyber strategy for small businesses so that they can better utilize cyber programs from DHS and from the Federal Government. H.R. 5064 also requires a review by the Government Accountability Office of current cybersecurity programs offered by the Federal Government to small businesses. Mr. Speaker, Small Business Development Centers have been on the ground helping small businesses in this country for more than 30 years. They have a presence in virtually every community in this country. This bill provides them with tools, resources, and the expert guidance that they need to tap into the already existing cyber resources in order to better meet the 21st century needs of small businesses in this country. Small businesses, Mr. Speaker, are the life blood of the American economy, so we need to ensure that resources are available to all of them to combat these cyber threats. This bill works to achieve that goal. I, therefore, ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5064.

Mr. RATCLIFFE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Madam Speaker, to protect and serve isn't just a slogan on the side of police cars all across the country. It is a promise--a promise that our men and women in blue keep every day as they serve to uphold the law and order in our cities and our towns. Without their bravery and sacrifice, our communities would be lawless and our families, our friends, and our loved ones would be in constant danger. I can't adequately express the sadness I felt last week when five Dallas police officers were targeted as victims in a horrific ambush simply for choosing to put on their uniform and to protect their community. Among the officers whose lives were unjustly taken was DART Police Department Officer Brent Thompson, who was a resident of Royse City in my home district. It just breaks my heart that this brave man's life was mercilessly and needlessly cut short at 43 years of age just because he reported for duty simply wanting to do his job. So I join the greater Dallas community, the Fourth District of Texas, and our entire country in mourning over the loss of Officer Thompson, as we remember him for his selfless commitment to our country. His family remains in our prayers, and we will be forever grateful to him for his service. Officer Thompson, you will not be forgotten. Your memory will continue to inspire us to stand up for those who stand up for us because this violence targeted towards our police officers is unacceptable, it is outrageous, and it needs to stop.

Mr. RATCLIFFE

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

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am here today to offer a very simple amendment to restrict funding to the EPA for finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing its proposed rule called the Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Detail, or CEIP. As many in this Chamber are aware, the United States Supreme Court issued an historic stay back in February on the EPA's so-called Clean Power Plan, halting the EPA from proceeding on any plans to move forward this harmful and costly regulation, a regulation that would raise household electricity prices by up to 34 percent in some areas of our country. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, we found that since the stay, the EPA has continued barreling forward, acting as if the Clean Power Plan will most certainly be upheld. According to the EPA's own documents, the final regulations of the Clean Power Plan already included the CEIP, meaning that the EPA's decision to move forward on its implementation, would, in fact, be unlawful and clearly forbidden by the Supreme Court's stay. Sadly, it is no surprise to many of us that the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA are once again choosing to ignore an order from the highest court in the land, but this amendment will stop the EPA from committing this blatant and unconstitutional violation. I commend Chairman Calvert for prohibiting funding to implement the Clean Power Plan in the underlying bill so we can ensure that the will of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the underlying bill are consistent in stopping the regulatory overreach of the EPA. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I once again encourage all Members to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chair, the Chevron doctrine is the primary driver of regulatory overreach. It should be overturned. This bill would do that; so I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chair, the amendment carves out of the bill regulations on lead and copper in drinking water. In so doing, it would preserve unelected bureaucrats' broad discretion to impose on the public overarching statutory and regulatory interpretations in this policy area. This amendment would all but guarantee that these unaccountable bureaucrats won't have to worry any more than they do right now about courts checking on their self-serving interpretations. It would let agencies get away with just as much as they do right now in basing overreaching regulations on tortured interpretations of existing statutes instead of coming to Congress for new legislation because the plain terms of existing law really don't support what they want to do. In short, the amendment seeks to perpetuate the Chevron and our doctrine's weakening of the separation of powers, a weakening that threatens liberty and that undermines the accountable government of, by, and for the people. Mr. Chair, no one denies that drinking water regulation is important, but no area of regulation is so important that it should allow unelected bureaucrats to avoid a vigorous system of checks and balances that our Framers intended, a system that this bill would restore. Bureaucrats should know that they will face vigorous judicial checks and balances when they act so that they have the strongest incentives to offer the best possible statutory and regulatory grounds for their actions and to carry out the most responsible and fair enforcement possible. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. RATCLIFFE

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016. I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for giving me the opportunity to lead on this issue. I also want to thank the 113 Members of Congress who believe this bill is important enough to cosponsor it. It is my sincere hope that all 435 Members of this House will vote in support of this incredibly important bill because every Member of this body took an oath to defend the Constitution and none of us should accept the constitutional erosion and infringement that is having a devastating impact on the very constituents that we all swore to represent. Mr. Chair, I ran for Congress because I wanted the opportunity to address the big issues of our time, to address the real problems that are hurting all Americans, and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act does exactly that. That bill repeals the so-called Chevron doctrine and, in so doing, will restore the constitutional separation of powers that our Founding Fathers intended. Named for the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc., the Chevron doctrine has, for three decades, required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. Said more plainly, Mr. Chair, this means that when American citizens and businesses challenge Federal regulators in court, the deck is stacked in favor of the regulators. Chevron deference is one of the, if not the primary, driving forces behind an outrageous expansion of a regulatory branch that our Founding Fathers never intended and one that is crippling the American economy and the American people. Unelected bureaucrats now draft regulations with the Chevron doctrine in mind, knowing that it will give them the ability to regulate, sometimes for political gain, beyond the actual scope of the statutes that we pass as the duly elected representatives of the people. Mr. Chair, by allowing unelected, unaccountable regulators to effectively grade their own papers, we are circumventing the will of the American people. Under Chevron, Congress can't prevent agencies from engaging in de facto lawmaking and courts are abdicating their constitutional responsibility to interpret laws. My bill will very simply fix this perversion of our Constitution by ensuring that Congress, not agencies, writes the laws; and that courts, not agencies, interpret the laws. Mr. Chair, it is vitally important to stress that my bill is entirely agnostic to specific policy issues. It doesn't specifically support or oppose any certain regulatory actions. This bill is simply about defending the Constitution and reestablishing three coequal branches of government. This is not and should not be a partisan issue. The candid truth, Mr. Chair, is that the Chevron doctrine has been abused by Democrat and Republican administrations alike for three decades. Both have been guilty of abusing the separation of powers for political expedience, and it is the American people who have been victimized by this. So let's end it. Let's finally fix a problem that plagues all Americans. Mr. Chair, many of us believe that the American experiment has endured, in large part, because of the wisdom and the thoughtful manner in which our framers crafted our Constitution. I refuse to believe that we can't all at least agree on that. I refuse to believe that restoring three coequal branches of government needs to be controversial. Today this body has an opportunity to stand up for and with the American people and stand against overreaching bureaucrats that the American people never elected. So, Mr. Chair, when the Constitution is restored, it is the American people who will win. Dear Members of Congress: We write to express support for the Separation of Powers Act (SOPRA) (H.R. 4768 and S. 2724) which would require courts to check regulatory overreach. As organizations dedicated to a free and open Internet, we believe SOPRA would be especially important in restoring judicial oversight of the FCC--and thus protecting Internet freedom from government overreach. Two Supreme Court decisions, Chevron v. NRDC (1984) and Auer v. Robbins (1997), mean that courts generally grant broad deference to administrative agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes and agency regulations. Only because of Chevron deference did two (of three) D.C. Circuit judges recently vote to uphold the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order. That decision gave the FCC a blank check to regulate the Internet as it sees fit, even to the point of effectively rewriting the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Open Internet Order represented a fundamental break from the light-touch, bipartisan approach that had allowed the Internet to flourish for nearly two decades. Despite the FCC's talk of protecting ``net neutrality,'' the FCC went well beyond that: reclassifying broadband under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act and claiming sweeping power over broadband. Under the panel majority's blind Chevron deference to the FCC, it is hard to see how the courts could stop the FCC from extending such outmoded regulations to ``edge'' companies like Facebook and Google, too. Similarly, while the FCC has promised to ``forebear'' from certain provisions of Title II, the court's decision suggests that the FCC would get deference in unforbearing-- which could result in the full weight of Title II being imposed on the Internet. Or, conversely, a deregulatory- minded FCC could use forbearance to gut not just the Order, but much of the existing regulations. In short, the majority's view of Chevron means Internet regulation will now be a game of political pingpong--with the courts resigned to sitting on the sidelines, watching the ball bounce back and forth. This ongoing uncertainty is particularly damaging to small businesses, who often lack the resources needed to comply with shifting regulatory burdens and litigate against unfavorable regulatory changes. SOPRA would restore the Judiciary's constitutional role in checking agency overreach and preventing excessive regulations from impeding innovation and economic growth. Specifically, the bill would clarify that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to conduct a new review of relevant questions of law when evaluating agency regulations--rather than simply deferring to the agency's judgment. Sincerely, TechFreedom, American Commitment, American Consumer Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Civitas Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Digital Liberty, Free the People, Independent Women's Forum, Institute for Liberty, Less Government, Mississippi Center for Public Policy, National Taxpayers Union, Protect Internet Freedom, Rio Grande Foundation, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Tech Knowledge.