Chris Stewart

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind words. Chairman Sessions is a hero of mine. There are a lot of reasons why I hold him in such high regard. One of the reasons is that he understands a couple of very important things. I think the first thing he understands is that the primary responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep Americans safe in a chaotic world. The second thing he understands is that nothing is more important than thing one. It is for these reasons that I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation to fund our military. Our inability to constantly fund our Federal Government has real consequences, but it has no greater consequence than it has for our military members. Nothing impacts our military with more devastating effect than the lack of sustained, predictable funding. We need to do what is right for the men and women in uniform charged with defending our country, including, I might add, members of my own family who are deployed, even as we speak. The uncertainty of funding creates problems in the supply chain with regard to everything from large acquisitions to the smallest repair part. It impacts training as funding is needed to lock in major events to include logistical support, movement of personnel and equipment, and access to sufficient types and quantities of munitions. I have spoken with military members, as recently as the last few weeks, who told me about their funding and their training being canceled because of the threat of a government shutdown. It has implications for their safety and their well-being. In a letter to Congress last September, Secretary Mattis warned of the consequences: funding through a CR cannot be reprogrammed; training impacts begin immediately, as I have said; and hiring actions and recruiting is curtailed. The bottom line is this: governing by crisis has had an enormous impact on our military, and it is time we do what is right and fully fund our country's defense. Funding the Department of Defense in the year 2018 will keep Americans safe by boosting our national defense and give a much-needed pay raise to our troops and an increase in end strength for the Active Duty, Guard, and the Reserve. Let me end with a personal observation. These wings that I proudly wear are my father's Air Force wings. He was an Air Force pilot in World War II. He had five sons who served in the military. I am proud to say that I was one of them, as Chairman Sessions has indicated. As I indicated as well, I have members of my own family who are deployed now, or will deploy in the next year. These young men and women put their lives on the line to serve and to protect our country. For heaven's sake, let's give them the funding to do that. Let's do the right thing. That is why I support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 682, I call up the bill (S. 139) to implement the use of Rapid DNA instruments to inform decisions about pretrial release or detention and their conditions, to solve and prevent violent crimes and other crimes, to exonerate the innocent, to prevent DNA analysis backlogs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, S. 139.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 139. On January 19, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 will expire. This vital legislation includes section 702, which permits the government to target foreign citizens located overseas to obtain foreign intelligence information. Section 702 is one of the most, if not the most, critical national security tool used by our intelligence community to obtain intelligence on foreign terrorists located overseas. Now, some claim section 702 vacuums bulk information without due regard to the intended target. This assertion is simply false. Section 702 is a targeted program, with roughly 106,000 foreign targets worldwide. Given that the worldwide population is about 7.5 billion, this program can hardly be described as bulk collection. Section 702 targets spies, terrorists, weapons proliferators, and other foreign adversaries who threaten the United States, and locating them is crucial to protecting our troops and our homeland. As an example, Hajji Iman, who was the second-in-command of ISIS, was located via section 702 and later removed from the battlefield. While the vast majority of examples remain classified, this is just one instance that demonstrates the necessity of this authority. Subject to multiple layers of oversight by all three branches of government, section 702 is one of the government's most rigorously overseen foreign intelligence collection authorities. To date, while compliance incidents occur and are dealt with appropriately, there has never been a known, intentional abuse of this authority. Nevertheless, the program should be subject to regular adjustments, as necessary, to ensure the effectiveness of privacy protections. Therefore, after careful consideration of the best way to strengthen privacy protections without hindering the program's effectiveness, the committee supports S. 139, a bipartisan bill that includes provisions and addresses concerns raised by the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate. The bill's reforms include: Requiring specific section 702 query procedures, separate from existing minimization procedures, which must be reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court every year; Limiting the instances in which the government can use section 702 information to prosecute U.S. people; Requiring the inspector general of the Department of Justice to conduct a review of the FBI's interpretation and implementation of the FBI's section 702 query procedures; Temporarily codifying the end of the NSA's section 702 upstream ``abouts'' collection until the government develops new procedures and briefs the congressional Intelligence and Judiciary Committees; And, finally, improving transparency by mandating the publication of section 702 minimization procedures and requiring additional reporting to Congress on how the intelligence community is using other FISA authorities. Mr. Speaker, during discussions over the past several months, both the House and the Senate have made several concessions to achieve this compromised language in order to reauthorize this critical national security authority. Accordingly, S. 139 now includes a probable cause- based order requirement for the FBI to access the content of a section 702 communication during FBI criminal investigations on Americans, unrelated to national security. This order requirement does not reflect the committee's belief or intent that law enforcement access to lawfully acquired information constitutes a separate search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by numerous Federal courts, does not require the FBI to obtain a separate order from the FISC to review lawfully acquired 702 information. Though not required by the Constitution, this compromise is meant to provide additional protections for U.S. person information that is incidentally collected under section 702. Along with the restrictions on the use of section 702 information in criminal prosecutions, this should provide further assurances to the American public that this vital national security tool is used strictly to discover and mitigate foreign threats to the United States, and the handling and use of any incidental U.S. person information is carefully controlled and monitored. Mr. Speaker, America faces an array of international threats more complicated than anything we have endured in the past. Speaking for the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, I cannot emphasize enough that now is not the time to draw back on key national security authorities. I am dismayed by the amount of disinformation being propagated by those who oppose section 702 for purely ideological reasons. When Congress must reauthorize this program again in 2023, we hope those who debate these issues, both inside and outside this Chamber, do so with intellectual honesty and integrity. The USA RIGHTS Act, which has been offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, is an attempt to kill this compromise. In its place, the amendment would begin resurrecting the information-sharing walls between national security and law enforcement that the 9/11 Commission identified as a major factor in the failure to identify and thwart the 9/11 plot. If individuals in this body cannot learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it. There is no support for this bill in the majority of the committees of jurisdiction whose members understand that this amendment would render section 702 inoperable. Therefore, in order to keep the U.S. interests and troops abroad safe from harm, we must ensure that the intelligence community has the tools it needs to provide intelligence to our soldiers abroad. Section 702 is critical in that regard, and S. 139 provides the intelligence community with the authorities needed to protect the homeland while implementing key privacy enhancements. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of S. 139, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues believe that Congress should go above and beyond what is required by the Fourth Amendment and institute additional safeguards on how the government handles any potential U.S. personal information that may be incidentally collected under section 702. While the varying committees may have different ideas as to how to strike the right balance between additional privacy measures and national security, the art of the compromise brings us to the current junction. Under S. 139, if the bill conducts a U.S.-person query into its database during a criminal investigation not related to national security and conducts a section 702 communication, the FBI must obtain an order from the FISA court prior to assessing the content of the communication. The committee does not believe that such an order is necessary under the Fourth Amendment, but it is adding more protections, as a matter of policy, in order to address unfounded concerns by opponents of section 702 that the authority is being used to investigate U.S. people. Proponents of the USA RIGHTS Act amendment will say that S. 139 does not go far enough in its current form and that they have crafted a great compromise that allows the intelligence community to do its job. Unfortunately, they are selling a poison pill that is extraordinarily harmful to our national security. Per the office of the Director of National Intelligence, under the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, the FBI would not be able to look at lawfully collected data related to suspicious activities similar to that of the 9/11 hijackers. This is unethical to the 9/11 Commission Report, and anyone who thinks about voting for the USA RIGHTS Act amendment should pick up a copy and skim it prior to voting. Unlike the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, S. 139 is able to balance national security and privacy while adhering to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission reporting. I echo the White House statement last night strongly opposing the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support S. 139. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to emphasize how dismayed I am by the amount of disinformation being propagated by opponents of section 702. I have heard some things over the last couple of days, and I just wonder, how in the world can someone believe that. Let me tell you why this amendment must be opposed. Under the USA RIGHTS Act, the intelligence community would not be able to query the name of the suspected terrorist supporter in the United States to see if he is in contact with terrorist recruiters. It would not be able to query the name of a person in the United States who has been suspiciously approaching U.S. Government employees with security clearances to determine if that person is part of a foreign espionage network. We would not be able to query the name of a registered owner of a suspicious vehicle parked in front of the Washington Monument to see if that person is in contact with terrorist operatives overseas. We would not be able to query the name of a person in the aftermath of a mass casualty attack on the United States to see if he has terrorist connections, or as a follow on, if potential follow-on attacks are imminent. We would not be able to query the name of a foreign national who travels to the United States to take flight training but doesn't care about learning how to land. Individuals in this room who want to end section 702 know that they have an opportunity to do with their vote, but they would be putting troops and American lives at risk. And if that is okay with you, then go ahead and vote for the USA RIGHTS Act amendment, but I promise you, you will regret it when, some day, in this dangerous world we live in, we have to answer to our constituents for our votes here today.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the tumultuous times in which we live, and it is true, we do face enormous challenges. But I would like to remind the American people of the things that will get us through these times. My parents were part of the Greatest Generation. My father was a pilot in World War II, and I am honored to wear his Air Force wings. My mother was a mother of 10 amazing children, many of which are with me today. They are the best friends that I have ever had. Our parents taught us something that each of us has embroidered and now hangs on our individual family walls, and it is this: Our family's motto is duty, honor, service to God, family, and country. We are, as Abraham Lincoln said: ``The last best hope of Earth.'' That was true when he said it. It is still true today. We created the miracle of the Constitution; we survived the catastrophe of the Civil War; we defeated communism, totalitarianism, fascism; we have the strength to get through the challenges that we face today. But it will only be true if we are true to that principle: Duty, honor, service to God, family, and country.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Collins and Chairman Goodlatte for their work. Mr. Chairman, I have to say, in listening to this debate, I can't imagine why anyone would oppose this legislation that is entirely designed to create transparency. This is good work that Chairman Goodlatte and Mr. Collins have worked on. Last week we heard a number of shocking stories about government malfeasance, such as Chairman Goodlatte's investigation that the government had settled and revealed that the Obama Justice Department had funneled money to politically allied groups. We are grateful for that. Today we are taking up H.R. 469, and I am thrilled that this legislation includes the text of my bill, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act. As I said, the purpose of this act is really very simple. Actually, contrary to what has been said, it is to bring simplicity, it is to bring transparency. This bill would go a long way to providing our constituents and taxpayers a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent. Heaven knows, and for heaven's sake, those of us here certainly know that sometimes the Federal Government makes mistakes. It is not perfect. It is prone to errors and it can cause harm to individuals. And when that happens, especially when these errors are particularly egregious, the government is sued and damages can be awarded. Early on, in fact, this Congress spent a lot of its time doing nothing but that, sorting through claims and making appropriations to pay those claims. In fact, not even 100 years ago, much of this body's work was consumed only by this topic. It wasn't until 1956 that Congress established the Judgment Fund and gave authority to the Treasury Department to resolve these claims in ``a permanent and indefinite appropriation.'' That has simply been abused. In keeping with the law, the Treasury Department files a yearly report with Congress and maintains a web page that supposedly can be searched. That sounds good, but it doesn't work that way. It is cryptic and has otherwise limited information related to each payout that has made the data almost entirely worthless. There is no information on what the government did. There is no information on the claimant. We are all familiar with, for example, when the previous administration took $1.3 billion out of the fund and converted it to cash and delivered it to Iran. Four years ago, The New York Times reported what was likely an illegal billion-dollar payout to farmers who had never even sued the government. This isn't just unacceptable, it is crazy. It is horrible government. It is what leads people to distrust the Federal Government. It would require the Treasury to make payment out of this fund public, and it would include very simple things that common sense would simply demand. This bill would name the agency. It would name the name of the plaintiff and the amount that they were paid, then a brief description of the facts around that claim. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by just saying the Judgment Fund Transparency Act may not prevent bad decisions by all government employees, but it will shine a light on decisions to the American people. It is about helping to increase trust between the American people and government, a government that we have given them reason not to trust. Let's bring in accountability and transparency to that. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and the language found within this bill.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing up H.R. 469, which includes, as indicated, the text of my bill, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act. The purpose of this act is really very simple. Actually, contrary to previous arguments, the rule of this and the intent of this is so simple. It is simply for government transparency. This bill will go a long way in providing our constituents and taxpayers a better idea of how their tax dollars are spent. Now, heaven knows, and for heaven's sake, those of us here, we certainly know, the Federal Government isn't perfect. It is prone to errors that can cause harm to individuals or organizations from time to time, and when these errors are particularly egregious, the government is sued and damages are awarded to those who are harmed. Early on, in fact, this Congress spent a large part of its time doing nothing but sorting through claims and making appropriations to pay those claims. In fact, not even 100 years ago, much of this body's work consumed only that topic, and it wasn't until 1956 that Congress established the Judgment Fund and gave authority to the Treasury Department to resolve these claims in ``a permanent and definite appropriation.'' That simply has been abused. In keeping with the law's requirement to report on the fund from time to time, the Treasury Department files a yearly report of the Judgment Fund with Congress, and also maintains a web page that can be searched. Now, this sounds good. Right? But the cryptic and otherwise limited information related to each payout has made the database almost entirely worthless. There is no information on what the government did wrong. There is no information on the claimant. In fact, journalists and transparency groups revealed in the last few months that from 2009 to 2015, the government paid out more than $25 million to unnamed or redacted recipients. A $25 million secret. We don't know who was paid, we don't know why they were paid, and, in some circumstances, we don't know how much they were paid. Now, we are all familiar with the previous administration's decision to take $1.3 billion out of the fund, convert it to cash, and deliver it to Iran, yet this isn't the only egregious use of this fund. Three years ago, The New York Times reported on what was likely an illegal billion-dollar payout to thousands of farmers who had never even sued the government. This isn't just unacceptable, it is crazy. It is horrible government. It is the type of thing that makes people resent the Federal Government. This bill aims to clarify and to reduce that. It aims to clean up the ambiguity that exists between the current law and provide much-needed transparency. It would require the Treasury to make public any payment from the Judgment Fund and to include very simple things that common sense would surely demand: the name of the agency named in the judgment, the name of the plaintiff, the amount they were paid, any other fees such as attorneys' fees or interest, and then finally a brief description of the facts which led to the claim. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act may not prevent bad decisions by all government employees or government agencies, but it will shine a light on those decisions to the American people. This is about helping to increase the amount of trust between the American people and a government that they simply don't trust. We give them reasons not to trust us. Let's bring accountability and transparency to that. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on passage of this crucial bill.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona, who I consider a friend and one of the great leaders in the Congress, for leading this Special Order and for bringing this important matter before the Chamber. 2017 will go down as the worst wildfire season in history. My home State of Utah has definitely felt the effects. In June, the Brian Head fire burned more than 71,000 acres in my State. It burned for nearly a month, creating more than $36 million in damage. And that doesn't count the millions--indeed tens of millions of dollars it took to fight the fire. While the fire was burning through my district, I was able to meet with local, State, and Federal leaders to take a tour of the fire and to survey the damage and to try to find a solution. The images I saw as I toured this fire were truly heartbreaking. Dozens of evacuated homes, burned homes, ruined forests, firefighters and volunteers who were working day and night to try to contain the fire, ash-filled lakes. I took more than an hour in a helicopter to fly around the circumference of this fire. As I was flying around looking down, thinking about, among other things, the wildlife that had been devastated by this fire, I wondered: How long will it take for us to recover from this, for this beautiful landscape to recover? And I can promise you this, it will not happen in my lifetime. My family owns a ranch, and almost 70 years ago, we had a similar fire. You can still see the scars from that fire, which is several generations now. One incident manager told me: ``In 29 years of fighting fires, I have never seen a fire move so fast, burn so quickly and so hot that it could not be controlled or fought head-on.'' You have to wonder: Why is that? The answer is very unfortunate. It is due to mismanagement. Current mismanagement--and it is mismanagement--has left our forests vulnerable to insects and disease that make for a ripe forest for catastrophic fires. These heavy-handed regulations paralyze forest managers so they can't accomplish the critical tasks that are necessary for proper forest management. This failure to treat high-risk areas and to remove hazardous buildup has left our land susceptible to fires that grow in size, severity, and cost. So you have to ask yourself: What is the answer? How do we stop this? How do we stop it from happening again? And the answer is really quite simple. Federal policies have contributed to recent catastrophic fires, and wildlife management begins with proper land management. That is why I support Representative Westerman's bipartisan Resilient Federal Forests Act, which allows agencies to do this work so that we can prevent these catastrophic wildfires. I look forward to the House passing this important legislation. Let us bring back the beauty of our forests. Let us bring back the health of our forests. Let us prevent these catastrophic fires that rage out of control. I thank Mr. Gosar for bringing this again to the floor.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, today I want to address a topic of grave and tragic importance. Every 12 minutes in the United States we experience a suicide-related death; and, shockingly, for every suicide death, there are 25 attempts. These are heartbreaking statistics and, sadly, they hit very close to home. In Utah, for example, we have the fifth highest rate of suicide deaths in the country. These are our neighbors, our coworkers, and, in some cases, our family and our friends. I think that most of us, if not all of us, have been touched by some of these tragic stories, and I believe that we have a responsibility to do everything we can to help those in need. That is why I introduced the National Suicide Improvement Act earlier this year. This bill hopes to streamline and provide easy access to potentially lifesaving resources by designing a new, national three-digit dialing number similar to 911 for a national suicide prevention and mental health crisis hotline. I believe this legislation has the ability to save lives and to benefit our loved ones who struggle with mental illness or suicidal thoughts. Let us do everything we can to help our fellow citizens who are in need, and that is what this legislation will do.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 622, a bill originally introduced by Representative Chaffetz of Utah, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to honor my good friend, Jason Chaffetz, as he prepares to leave the House tomorrow. On the day that I was first elected, the very first phone call I got was a number I didn't recognize. I picked it up, and it was Jason. He was the first person to call and congratulate me. He has become a close friend ever since. But he has become more than a friend. He is a person who I trust. I go to him often for advice. I think he has the best political mind in all of Utah, and I am going to miss that. I also appreciate his honesty and his integrity. Leaders take hits-- we understand that--and Jason has taken his share of arrows by those who may not agree with his positions. But no one has ever questioned his honesty or his integrity. There is a great old movie called ``Grumpy Old Men.'' Jason will never be a star in that movie because he is one of the most optimistic, friendly, and positive people that I know. He always has a smile on his face. So for those reasons, Jason, we are going to miss you. On behalf of all Utahns, I thank him for his service. On behalf of millions of Americans throughout the country, we wish him Godspeed in his adventures ahead.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, at its heart, this rule is about one thing. It is about taking power away from local officials, including local BLM officials, and moving that power to Washington, D.C., to faceless bureaucrats who sit in cubicles here in this city and make decisions that have enormous impacts upon families and upon individuals. In many cases, these bureaucrats have never been to the States, and may never be. There is a county in my district that is 97 percent controlled by the Federal Government. I have two counties that are 90 percent controlled by the Federal Government. So many of the decisions that are made that impact these counties and these families are made in Washington rather than at the local level. That is what we are here today to talk about: this egregious consolidation and power by D.C. bureaucrats. The Bureau of Land Management's final rule is exactly that--a snapshot of everything that is wrong with the previous administration. The rule is so flawed that a couple of administrative fixes simply won't fix it. It has to be repealed. The previous rule was on the book for decades. This rule was introduced and finalized in less than a year. Thousands of comments were intended to fix flawed reasoning in the rule. State and county commissioners' comments were largely ignored. Let's remember, those State and county commissioners represent the people. They understand the needs of the people. Once again, 2.0 moves all of that decisionmaking out of the local office and back here to Washington, D.C. These D.C. bureaucrats don't have the on-the-ground knowledge of the situation; they don't know the land, they don't know the needs of the county, and they don't know the people. That is not the only instance of diluting local voices. Planning 2.0 also undercuts the involvement of counties and other local government agencies by inviting distant voices to the planning table who would steer resource management plans away from multiple use early on in the planning process. This is a 180-degree turn from previous planning regulations. Not only did 2.0 dilute local control, it also dilutes real local impacts. Let me explain what that means. When you look at local impacts instead of looking at the actual communities around where these decisions are being made, they can look out very broadly. In my case, you look at a national park in Utah. They can look at the impacts of that and say, well, this has had a positive benefit, but that is because they may be looking at a community that is 100 miles away. They may be looking at St. George. Why not look at Las Vegas? Why not look at Los Angeles and say, Oh, those communities are doing fine; the local economic impacts have been positive? It is not a fair reflection of what is happening to the local communities. Once again, the local people, the local families. While many lauded the BLM for giving this planning process an update--and I am glad that it did; it was necessary--they fell short of delivering a final rule that helps people. That is why I join in this effort to repeal it.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, as I think all of us know, today marks the 75th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor; a devastating event that took the lives of more than 2,300 Americans and ultimately led, of course, to the United States' entrance into World War II. Though it is painful to think of all the brave men and women we lost that day, I am grateful for this heroic generation of soldiers, including my own father, who served in defense of the freedoms of our country during World War II. I wear my father's wings. I have them on today. I wear them every day. My mom and dad love their country and they, like so many others, sacrificed so much. It was examples of heroes such as these that led me to make the decision when I was a young man to become a pilot in the Air Force. I would like to take a moment and share the story of one brave Utahn, Mervyn Bennion, who was stationed at Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack. After graduating from high school in Salt Lake City, Bennion accepted his appointment to the United States Naval Academy, where he graduated near the top of his class. He later assumed command of the USS West Virginia in July of 1941. The ship was moored with other vessels on Battleship Row on that Sunday morning. Just shy of 8 a.m., Japanese forces struck the USS West Virginia with at least six torpedoes and two bombs. Under attack and struggling to organize a defense from the bridge, Captain Bennion was struck with shrapnel from one of these bombs; but, still, he continued to direct the ship's battle while using one of his hands to hold his own wounds closed. Several sailors attempted to convince him to go to the first-aid station and seek medical attention, but he refused to leave his post. Sadly, he later died from a loss of blood. Captain Bennion was recognized with the Medal of Honor--our Nation's highest military honor--for his ``conspicuous devotion to duty, extraordinary courage, and complete disregard for his own life.'' Today, on the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, let us remember not only the brave men and women who lost their lives in that attack, but also those who have continued to fight for our freedoms for the last 75 years. In dark and dangerous places all around the globe, American soldiers, sailors, and airmen are doing what they can to bring stability and safety to many parts of the world. We should remember them. We should thank them. We should keep them and their families in our prayers. What we have asked them to do is not easy. They deserve our gratitude and our respect. Congratulating Completion of the Freedmen's Bureau Records Project

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to congratulate the completion of the Freedmen's Bureau Records Project. The Freedmen's Bureau was organized by Congress in 1865 at the conclusion of the Civil War. It offered assistance to freed slaves in a variety of ways. The Bureau opened schools to educate the illiterate. It managed hospitals, it rationed food and clothing for the destitute, and it even solemnized marriages. In the process, it gathered priceless handwritten personal information on potentially 4 million African Americans. Due to the work and commitment of over 25,000 volunteers, with the help of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and FamilySearch International, they have been able to uncover the names and stories of over 1.9 million freed slaves. In some cases, for the very first time, African Americans are able to discover their Civil War-era families through an online and searchable database. I was especially pleased to attend an event yesterday where the newly indexed database of the Freedmen's Bureau Records was delivered to the Smithsonian's new National Museum of African American History and Culture. If I could just divert for a moment, I would like to share a story from this experience from one of the leaders of the museum, and I hope he will forgive me for stealing his story and repeating it to you. This gentleman told of how his grandparents passed away when he was very young. He had no memory of his grandparents, except for going to his grandmother's house and watching her cook on some old tin cookie sheets. But as he was able to, for the first time, research his own family records, he found the records of one of his ancestors who was a slave; and part of those records was an accounting of money that was paid to her and some of the things that she was able to purchase. One of them was a line which recorded that she paid 22 cents for a set of tin cookie sheets. What an emotional moment it was for him to have that connection now with his ancestors that he would not have been able to otherwise. The Freedmen's Bureau Records Project allows families to discover their ancestors. It allows them to connect with them. It allows them to see the heroes among their ancestors that so many of them have. I would like to congratulate and thank the thousands of volunteers who sacrificed their time in this wonderful project.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nunes for allowing me to speak in support of the Intelligence Authorization Act. Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is easiest for us to forget that the primary responsibility of the Federal Government is to help to keep us safe. I felt the weight of that responsibility while I was serving as an Air Force pilot for 14 years, and now I am reminded almost every day of that same responsibility in my role on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The truth is that we live in a dangerous world. The news is filled daily with troubling reports of terrorist attacks and dangerous activities. All of us are aware that just this week a young man, almost certainly inspired by terrorist ideology, attacked students and faculty at The Ohio State University. It doesn't stop with terrorism. We also face tremendous threats from China, Russia, North Korea, the Ya'alons in Iran, and the list goes on and on. I am grateful for the brave men and women around the world serving our military and in our intelligence communities who operate critical national security programs which protect Americans and keep us safe. That is why we must pass the Intelligence Authorization Act. Not only does this bill continue to authorize critical national security programs at a time when we face the most significant threat level since 9/11, it also contains good government provisions that have gained bipartisan support. This bill shines light on Guantanamo Bay detainees, requiring a review of their past terrorist activities. It strengthens congressional oversight of privacy and civil liberties, and it also updates intelligence community whistle-blowing procedures. Importantly, this bill does not contain any provisions related to surveillance authorities. Mr. Speaker, this bill is critical to providing the intelligence community with the tools and the authorizations they need to protect Americans and our national security. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill, the Veterans TRICARE Choice Act. Mr. Speaker, it was my honor to serve for 14 years as a pilot in the Air Force, and for my family--my wife, my children, and me--those were some of the best years of our lives. I continue to be amazed at the quality of those who serve in our military. It shouldn't become cliche to say this: These are some of the finest young men and women that our country has ever produced; they are strong, intelligent, dedicated, courageous individuals who choose to use their talents to serve the rest of us. It makes me uncomfortable sometimes when I hear those of us who serve in Congress being called public servants when we know that the true public servants are the airmen, the seamen, the soldiers, the marines-- and their families; let's not forget their families and their sacrifice as well--those who spend their careers either fighting abroad or preparing for that eventuality. As Americans, we should make it a habit to always thank these servicemembers whenever we see them. As Members of Congress, it is our job to be wise in our foreign policy, to give our warfighters the resources they need to win and then to ensure that veterans receive the benefits that we have promised them. In fact, that third responsibility is the genesis for this bill, fixing a glitch that was brought to my attention. As the gentleman has said already, it is just a glitch, just a loophole in the current law that was brought to my attention by a group of airline pilots. These pilots, many of whom are veterans, realized that, as veterans, they were unable to take advantage of all the healthcare benefits offered by their civilian employers. Many of them wanted to use HSAs but, because of the TRICARE eligibility, were legally unable to do that. Mr. Speaker, HSAs are an innovative healthcare option that House Republicans have advanced as an important part of a market-driven, affordable healthcare system. In fact, HSAs are a critical component to the Speaker's Better Way agenda, which I think many of us are excited to see signed into law in the coming months. With that in mind, it makes no sense to lock veterans out of this benefit based on eligibility for TRICARE. These pilots came to my office and had a simple request: Give us an on-off switch for TRICARE so the veterans who wish to use an HSA while retaining their right to return to TRICARE in the future can do that if they choose. It made sense, so that is what we did with this bill. The Veterans TRICARE Choice Act allows a veteran to suspend his or her TRICARE benefits for the purpose of enrolling in a health savings plan. If, for whatever reason, the veteran wishes to return to TRICARE, he or she can do so. It is a simple, commonsense fix with broad, bipartisan support. I would like to thank Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a fellow veteran with a distinguished career in the United States Navy and a current member of the Hawaiian National Guard. Representative Gabbard and I have been fortunate to work together on this bill for almost 3 years now, and I am grateful for her work to bring this bill to this point. I would also like to thank Chairman Brady, Chairman Thornberry, Chairman Tiberi, Chairman Heck, and each of their staffs for their great work and their support in refining the bill and bringing it to the floor today. I am grateful for a similar measure that will be included in the National Defense Authorization Act we will be voting on later this week. Finally, I would like to thank Nathaniel Johnson, a former member of my staff, a member of the Utah National Guard, a former combat medic who served in Afghanistan, and of course we called him Doc then. I would like to thank Doc, who felt compelled to see this bill through to its conclusion. Mr. Speaker, our veterans deserve our most profound gratitude. Nothing about their military service should prevent them from accessing the same benefits as their nonveteran coworkers. The very least we can do for them is ensure they receive the benefits we promised them and that the process goes forward as smoothly as possible. I recognize we have lots to do on that front, but I am hopeful the passage of this bill will be one small step forward in that direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, it is with honor but with sadness that I rise today to honor a local hero, 26-year-old West Valley Police Officer Cody Brotherson, who was killed last week in the line of duty. On Sunday, November 6, around 3 a.m., police were pursuing three individuals in a stolen vehicle. While Officer Brotherson was placing spikes in an attempt to stop this stolen vehicle, he was hit by the car and, tragically, killed. Not only will he be deeply missed by his parents, two brothers, and loving fiance, but by the entire community. I have had the chance, like many Members of Congress, to go on police ride-alongs, and again and again I am impressed with their hard work, their professionalism, and their willingness to put themselves at risk so that they can protect those of us whom they serve. Now more than ever, it is important that we recognize these brave men and women who are willing to serve and to protect our communities. Cody was one of these brave ones who ultimately lost his life protecting us. My prayers go out to the Brotherson family during this extremely difficult time. We will forever be grateful for his and for their sacrifice.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 891, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to submit statements or extraneous materials for the Record on House Resolution 891.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman and Mr. Salmon for letting me speak in support of this resolution. I have worked very closely over the last several years with the Embassy of Japan. I was honored, for example, to host the Deputy Ambassador last month in Utah. My parents lived for 3 years as a military family in Japan, and I remember growing up, our house was filled with Japanese art and beautiful bonsai trees. I also feel a personal connection with South Korea, where one of my sons served as a missionary for 2 years. Both Japan and South Korea are not only critical allies of the United States, but they are critical to security and to peace throughout Asia. As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I am reminded every day that we live in a dangerous world. On top of the list of dangerous challenges is North Korea, which is a brutal, thuggish, repressive regime that unquestionably challenges international security and stability. For example, as has been mentioned here a number of times now, we learned just within the last few weeks that three new ballistic missiles had been launched toward Japan. Unfortunately, this isn't new. Reports of similar missile launches from North Korea seem to be almost routine, and that is why this resolution is so important. Not only does it condemn North Korea's nuclear test and missile launches, it also reaffirms the importance of a strong relationship, once again, between Japan, South Korea, and the United States. A strong relationship between our three countries is more important now than it ever has been before, as we coordinate more advanced regional ballistic missile defense systems and work to counter North Korea's destabilizing activities. Shifting gears just a little bit, I would also like to take a moment to mention an American student, David Sneddon, who disappeared in 2004 without explanation while hiking in southwest China. He was fluent in Korean, and some respective experts have suggested that he may have been abducted by North Korea to train their intelligence operatives in English and Western culture. Recently--in fact, just last week--a news outlet in Japan reported that a North Korea defector had seen David and that he was alive, that he was teaching English in North Korea. I have sponsored a House resolution that asks the State Department to investigate the theory that David may have been abducted by the North Korean regime, and I urge the House to vote on this important resolution. That is why this resolution that we are speaking about today is so important. It is one of the foundations that is necessary in order for us to move forward on these others. So I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 634, as a strong United States, Japan, and South Korea relationship is critical to stopping North Korea expansion and operating as a criminal enterprise. I thank the chairman again for letting me speak on behalf of this resolution.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor all Olympians but, especially, the Olympians who are heading to Rio from my home State of Utah. My family and I hardly ever watch TV. We have lost the remote control for months at a time and no one has really cared, but, every 4 years, we do look forward to watching the Olympic Games on television. Part of the reason it is fun for us is that we realize the enormous commitment, strength, and courage it takes to become an Olympic athlete, and we realize the endless hours of training and sacrifice that will, hopefully, lead to their success. I am extremely proud of the Utahns who have earned their spot on Team USA: Devery Karz for rowing, Jared Ward for track and field, and Jake Gibb for volleyball. Others will be added to the Olympic team in the next few weeks. We should all look to these Olympians as examples of hard work and dedication. They may not be guaranteed medals in Rio, but to all of us Americans, to Utahns, and others, we view them as champions. I wish them all good luck, and I wish them success and safety. My family and I will find the remote control, and we will be cheering for them this summer.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, some 20 years ago, President Clinton went to Arizona and he pointed across the border into Utah, in my district, and he said: I'm creating a national monument over there--nearly 2 million acres. He did not have the courage to come to Utah to defend this monument nor to create it because he knew that the local people did not support it. That monument has been incredibly unpopular since then. It has kicked ranchers off the range. It has decimated the local economies, until we have reached this point, where some of the local school districts have had to declare an emergency because their schools are dying and their children are having to ride a bus for 2 hours, one way, 2 hours, to go to school. Why? Because there are no jobs that can support a family, and people are having to leave. Local input is so important to the creation of these monuments, and there are examples where local input and where people collaborating have worked together and come to a great solution. Rob Bishop has done that. Just yesterday, we held a bipartisan press conference where we had local mayors, Republicans and Democrats, on what we called the Mountain Accord. I am asking President Obama, please, come to my State. Talk to the people in my district. See what they think about this monument. Come talk to us and see how this will impact them. Now, let me close with this. There is a reason I live in Utah. I love to ski. I love to rock climb. I love to hike. I love to sit on my porch and look at the beautiful landscape around me. I want to preserve this. All of us do. But there is a right way to do this and there is a wrong way to do this, and the Antiquities Act and the stroke of a pen of a President who won't even come to the State to defend his action is not the right way.