Dina Titus

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 2018, I was improperly recorded as a Yes vote on Roll Call No. 198. This was in error and I wish to be recorded as a No on RC No. 198.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill which, much like the Republicans' tax measure, comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted. It will have devastating impacts on SNAP recipients across the Nation, including one in seven in Nevada who are on this program. It will take away food assistance from some of our most vulnerable: young children, seniors, and the disabled. It will also force families to jump through extra hoops in order to access other needed benefits like assistance with their electricity bills. We can and should be doing more to lift families out of poverty and end hunger in the United States. Shamefully, this bill does just the opposite.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from the Office of the Governor of Nevada in support of House Amendment No. 3. Office of the Governor, May 9, 2018. Dear Members of the House of Representatives, As the House of Representatives prepares to vote on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, H.R. 3053, I write as I have done previously, to reiterate the firm and consistent position of the State of Nevada on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. My position, and that of the State of Nevada, remains identical to my previous letters to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Environment, in May 2015, January 2016, April 2016, and April 2017: the State of Nevada opposes the project based on scientific, technical, and legal merits. And as I have reminded members of this body on previous occasions, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, only the Governor is empowered to consult with the Federal government on matters related to the siting of a nuclear waste repository. In the past thirteen months as H.R. 3053 moved through subcommittee and committee, Members of Nevada's congressional delegation have communicated our specific concerns about the provisions of the bill. The full committee responded by eliminating the unwise and likely unconstitutional proposals to usurp Nevada's jurisdiction over water resources and air quality. Nonetheless, our primary objection remains the fundamentally flawed adherence to the 1987 NWPA amendments that unfairly and without scientific justification singled out Nevada as the only state where a proposed nuclear waste repository is being considered. The bill continues the truncation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) licensing proceeding in ways that would limit Nevada's ability to protect public health and safety and the environment. Yucca Mountain is an unsuitable site for a high-level nuclear waste repository because of its geology and hydrology. Fractured rock above and below the repository tunnels would allow highly corrosive oxidizing groundwater to transport dangerous radioactive material from the waste packages into the water table, where they would be transported to an aquifer from which water is used for a variety of purposes. In 2009, the NRC licensing boards admitted 218 Nevada contentions, supported by over one thousand pages of documentation that challenged the safety and environmental impacts of the DOE license application. If the NRC process is restarted, Nevada will fully adjudicate these contentions through trial-like hearings and cross- examination of expert witnesses. Nevada intends to prevail in this process, which could take five years and $2 billion to complete, and which will inevitably be followed by years of litigation. H.R. 3053 continues to ignore the primary recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, a consent-based siting process for a repository, and again singles out Nevada as the nation's only repository. As I have stated before, if the Congress had embraced such a process when my predecessor, Governor Kenny Guinn, vetoed the selection of Yucca Mountain 16 years ago, we would today be closer to a long-term solution for managing the nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. As a nation, we should be able to do better than simply repeating this failed exercise, wasting billions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars, trying once again to force an unsafe site on an unwilling State. Sincere regards, Brian Sandoval, Governor.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, also, contrary to the sponsor's comments, the area around Yucca Mountain is not some desolate area. It has iconic wildlife, endangered species, and Native American artifacts. Also, the proposed facility sits above the water table and on an active fault and can only be reached by roads that travel through 329 of your congressional districts. Finally, like New Mexico, the people in Nevada have suffered from tests of atomic weapons that the government told us: Don't worry; it will be safe. In short, this bill does nothing to really address the root of the problem, and I urge Members to vote against it. It has cost us 36 years and $15 billion, and all we have to show for it is a hole in the ground. We should be doing consent-based decisionmaking that will move us forward and not continue this failed policy that is bad politics and bad policy.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, today we must decide if you are going to double down on policies that have been an abject failure for the last three decades or if you will chart a new course that doesn't repeat the same mistakes of previous Congresses. The first ``Screw Nevada'' bill was passed in 1982, and since that time, Nevada's residents, elected officials, business leaders, and health and environmental groups have steadfastly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from over 100 groups in opposition. City of Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, May 7, 2018. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, House Majority Leader, Washington, DC. Hon. Steve Scalise, House Majority Whip, Washington, DC. Dear Sirs: In 1987 Congress voted for the Department of Energy (DOE) to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain without the support of Nevada. Now, the House of Representatives is planning to consider H.R. 3053, The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. I am writing to express my vehement opposition to this legislation. Yucca Mountain would cost U. S. taxpayers billions of dollars and require the dangerous transportation of nuclear waste across every state in the country before it arrives in Nevada, which, by the way, produces no nuclear waste These transports journey through communities in the nation whose infrastructures are well-known to be rated at the dangerously low, D+ level by highly renowned associations of engineers and scientific professionals. Bridges and tunnels have not been reinforced in decades, railroad tracks are faulty (as we well know!), and roads are beyond needing repair and replacement. No matter the transport vehicle used, the cargo travels on challenged routes which are unknown to the public and at times undeclared! In my tenure as Mayor, every year I have warned my fellow Mayors of the dangers of this transportation, and every year the Mayors across the nation have passed a resolution at their annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting requiring that the U.S. Department of Energy instead focus on deactivating and/or repurposing radioactive waste on site. High-priority research is needed to identify methods for the safe treatment and storage of radioactive waste at origination locations in order to mitigate the health and environmental risks of transporting low, high and mixed level waste to offsite treatment facilities. Even Mayors with nuclear waste on their doorsteps understand the dangers of transporting this waste As Mayor of Las Vegas, I am fortunate to preside over a beautiful city that is home to over 600,000 residents in one of the fastest-growing areas in the nation boasting over 2.4 million residents. Additionally, 42 million visitors choose the Las Vegas valley as a destination annually. Yucca Mountain is less than 100 miles away from this gem in the desert. I believe that DOE's Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be required to have support from state, local and tribal governments before constructing a nuclear waste repository anywhere in the country Therefore, I urge you and your colleagues to vote down H.R. 3053, which rejects science and ignores our steadfast opposition Sincerely, Carolyn Goodman, Mayor.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, you have heard that the legislation before you now, ``Screw Nevada 2.0,'' is a work of compromise, a bipartisan effort, not perfect, but a step forward. Well, that, frankly, is an opinion. It is not the facts. Here are the facts: The legislation overrides environmental laws, allowing the EPA to move the goalposts in terms of radiation limits to ensure that nothing will ever interfere with the agenda of the nuclear industry. It sets up a consent-based process for the establishment of an interim storage facility but imposes a permanent facility at Yucca Mountain. It increases the amount of nuclear waste to be dumped in Nevada by 37 percent, 110 metric tons more that were not considered in any of the environmental or safety studies being used to justify the project. It also removes the prohibition currently in law that prohibits Nevada from being the de facto interim storage facility until a permanent one can be licensed. It was also changed after passing out of committee to address the high scoring costs, making it less likely that we get host benefits.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which is also supported by my Nevada colleague (Mr. Kihuen) is very simple and straightforward. It sets up consent-based site decisionmaking as an alternative to ``Screwing Nevada 2.0,'' which just continues the process that has lasted 36 years, has cost $15 billion, is going nowhere in the Senate, and has nothing to show for it but a big hole in the ground. Consent-based siting, on the other hand, is fair. Nevada doesn't want your nuclear waste. We didn't get any benefits from it, and we didn't generate it. But Texas and New Mexico do want it, so why not let them have it? It is also a sound policy. It was the number one recommendation of the esteemed Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. Now, you can argue the politics, you can distort the science, you can assert it is the law--as though a 1982 policy is the Ten Commandments--but you can't have the truth. Now, my colleagues don't want this dangerous waste in their backyards any more than Nevadans do. I get that. That is pretty easy to understand. But it is funny, they didn't mind the jobs; they didn't mind the tax revenue, the cheap power, and the political support they got from the nuclear power industry over the years that it has existed. Now, they just want somebody else to clean up their mess. Well, I say, instead of screwing Nevada one more time, why don't we really work together so we can finally and effectively solve the problem? We could do this with consent-based siting for both interim and permanent storage facilities. This would be a real solution that could take us into the future. So I would urge my colleagues to support the Titus amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I would just respond to two things. I thank the gentleman for recognizing what Nevada did to help win the Cold War. We were the site of atomic testing for years. We still bear those scars. But this is not about military waste; this is about commercial waste. Second, while I appreciate the chairman's concern about Nevada and giving us benefits, the health and safety of Nevadans is not for sale to the nuclear power industry. Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague and the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, that is in Washington. It is not in Oregon. If you don't even know where Hanford is, I am not sure you really understand what took place there. I would just say: The law of the land, that is a great argument. You forgot about that argument when you tried to repeal ObamaCare 60 times and have done everything you can to roll back Dodd-Frank. So law of the land is a pretty weak, specious argument. This is not just about the safety of Nevada. This is about doing what is right, finding a policy that will work, that is based on consent, that the experts say is the way to go, that has a chance to get out of the Senate and really move us forward so we do quit wasting time, so we do quit wasting money, and we find a real solution to an issue that does affect the entire Nation. That is why it should be consent based. That is why I think we should support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I would say again, please keep in mind that this has an opportunity to pass. It will really solve the problem. It will not turn the clock back to an old way that has failed, that is faulty science, bad politics, and even worse policy. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind words and for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I represent Las Vegas, which is the heart of southern Nevada. We have over 2 million people, and we welcome 40 million people from around the world every year. Let me give you a different perspective. I have been fighting Yucca Mountain since the 1980s. I do know these issues. I appreciate some of the points that have been made, but some of them are just incorrect. H.R. 3053 is a flawed piece of legislation, and it just doubles down on bad policy and bad politics. I testified in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee on this bill when it was first introduced last year and noted many of the flaws in the legislation, flaws that remain in the bill. I also presented a map that showed that, if this waste is taken to Nevada, it will go through over 300 of our Members' districts: past their schools, past their churches, past their businesses, in their backyards. So I want them to keep that in mind as they focus on Nevada. Other flaws with the bill: First, the bill would bust the cap for the amount of highly radioactive nuclear waste that would be dumped in Nevada. The bill arbitrarily increases the amount by 37 percent, 37 percent over what was authorized in 1987. But what is more, not one of the environmental impact studies, the five-volume safety evaluation report, or any scientific document that relates to Yucca Mountain has studied the impact of increasing that original 70,000-metric-ton cap. So this would not only increase it, they haven't even studied what the impact of the increase would be. The bill also deems approved changes in the EPA's radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain prior to the NRC's final licensing document. This leads one to conclude that, no matter what challenge they face, they will just figure out a way to get around it regardless of what the science says. Proponents of this legislation also say that, well, you will get generous host benefits if you take this facility. Well, that is just another falsehood. The provisions in the bill that were changed after it passed the committee in order to bring down the cost of the bill and address the massive scoring issues make our getting those benefits much less likely. These benefits have to be approved by future Congresses appropriating hundreds of millions of dollars. You don't really think they are going to do that, do you? They shut down the government twice just this year alone over disagreements on spending. If this legislation were about good policy or addressing the issue or getting the technicalities correct, I would be standing here supporting it, but I just cannot do that the way it is written. Mr. Speaker, the Congress first passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as you heard, in 1982. It was amended in 1987 just to look at Nevada, not any of the other sites. We call that the ``Screw Nevada'' bill. Well, we call it that because you didn't have Nevada wanting it to come there. You didn't have the science to put it there. You just screwed Nevada and stuck it there.

Ms. TITUS. Well, this is just more of the same. It is politics, pure and simple. It is three decades later. We have heard we spent $15 billion. All you got is a hole in the ground. This is ``Screw Nevada 2.0.'' I am going to offer an amendment that allows for consent-based decisionmaking, which was the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation, and I hope that we can go in that direction. You allow consent-based for interim storage, why not for permanent storage? That would be the way to solve this problem. That would be the way to move us forward. We wouldn't waste billions more and decades more in terms of time. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, as the Democratic chair of the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus, I rise to celebrate the 35th annual National Travel and Tourism Week, which provides us an opportunity to showcase the importance of travel and tourism in creating economic growth and opportunity and enhancing the quality of life in every district throughout the United States. Our second largest industry export and our seventh largest employer, travel generates $2.4 trillion for the U.S. economy and supports some 15.6 million jobs. In southern Nevada alone, tourism generates nearly $60 billion annually. Last year, 42 million visitors came to Las Vegas, and we hosted almost 20,000 conventions, which brought in 6 million people from around the world. So, as we honor the valuable contributions of the hardworking people in this vital industry, I want to remind my colleagues that we need to support its growth and development by making real investments in the country's infrastructure so we can increase the efficiency and reliability of travel and encourage greater tourism to Las Vegas and all the United States. It is about putting out a welcome mat and setting a bigger table.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. Mr. Chair, I come to the floor as a cosponsor of H.R. 4. It is legislation that is long overdue in addressing the immediate and long- term needs of the FAA and our aviation industry. It includes a number of priorities that I fought for which are critical to my State of Nevada. First, the legislation extends the authorization of the Nevada UAS test range to ensure completion of its critical work in coordination with the FAA and NASA on low-altitude air traffic management systems, commonly referred to as UTM. It also includes my amendment with Congressman Webster from Florida to ensure that the Nation's largest airports, including McCarran in Las Vegas, participate in a streamlined approval process for passenger facility charge projects so we can modernize our crumbling airport infrastructure. In addition, it includes, as you have heard, a number of critical provisions that enhance safety, protect consumers, and keep our aerospace industry number one in the world. As the new ranking member of the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Subcommittee, I am also pleased that the language of the Disaster Recovery and Reform Act are included in this bill. Last year's back-to-back-to-back massive hurricanes, followed by mudslides and devastating wildfires, demonstrate the growing challenges we face as we continue to grapple with global climate change. Lives were lost, individuals and animals were injured, and property damages were just outstanding. Many are still trying to get their lives back to normal. So it would be irresponsible and unacceptable for us to follow the Flat Earth Society's notion that this doesn't really exist. It indeed is a threat to our health and safety. The act takes concrete steps towards making our communities safer. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For every $1 you spend on premitigation, you save $6 in future disaster costs. The DRRA addresses this by providing stable funding for the Emergency Management Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program and also additional funding for wildfire suppression. In addition, it requires that communities build back to the latest model building codes. Since the Federal Government is paying for a minimum of 75 percent of major disaster costs, it is necessary for us to protect our investment by requiring stronger, smarter, and more resilient rebuilding. Mr. Chair, I hope that the bill moves forward without any poison pills, because we need this legislation. It is a good bill, and I support it.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, after testifying before the Rules Committee last night on my amendment to this bill, H.R. 4, a worthy amendment that, by the way, was not made in order and will not be debated or voted on by this body, I felt compelled to speak about the broken process that dominates this Congress. The Speaker promised us an open and inclusive process but, in reality, it has never been more closed. Members play very little role in legislating today. Instead, the agenda is dictated and the process is controlled by a failed leadership cabal. Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that majorities can switch and, when they do, previous mistreatment, unfairness, and disregard for the democratic process will be hard to forget. In the meantime, we can reverse this destructive trend and better serve the American people by rejecting the rule before us, so I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent April 16, 2018 due to unforeseen circumstances. If I were present, I would have voted on the following: Roll no. 140--H.R. 146--On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill: Yea, and Roll no. 141--S. 167--On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended: Yea.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to once again remind my colleagues why the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository is an unworkable project. There are design flaws that the NRC's own analysis show lead to radioactive waste leaking into the water table, and transportation plans would ship more than 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by train and truck through 329 congressional districts for years to come past your homes, your businesses, your schools, and your churches. Now some of my colleagues want to make this bad situation even worse by busting the caps on the amount of allowable waste to be stored, increasing the danger and invalidating any existing studies. If the proponents of Yucca Mountain and their industry donors are really serious about solving the problems of nuclear waste storage, they would follow the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations and pass my consent-based bill rather than dumping nuclear waste into a State that does not produce it and does not want it. Nevada is not a wasteland.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent February 13, 2018, due to unforeseen circumstances. If I were present, I would have voted on the following: Roll no. 71--H.R. 4979--On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended: Yea. Roll no. 70--H.R. 4533--On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended: Yea.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent January 16, 2018 due to unforeseen circumstances. Had I been present, I would have voted on the following: Roll no. 18--H.R. 4318--On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill: YEA, and Roll no. 19--S. 117--On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill: YEA.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1, the Republican tax scam. I voted against this bill a few weeks ago and again when it was brought before the House on December 19. This bill was crafted behind closed doors, without regular order, and without thorough public input. The result is legislation that would dismantle our health care system, add significant complexity to the tax code, and harm my district's seniors, students, and virtually every middle-class family. Many of my constituents suffered great economic hardship and are just beginning to recover from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. This tax bill is not a way to bolster the recovery effort; it is a red herring that relies on the myth of trickle-down economics in order to give top earners more breaks. Another way the Republican tax bill callously demonstrates a lack of concern for the average American that has been left largely out of the conversation, is the taxation of our citizens living abroad. I often hear from my overseas constituents and American expats I meet around the world about the burdens they face with the American citizenship- based taxation system. Like my constituents in Las Vegas, many of our citizens residing overseas are teachers, small business owners, and middle-class and working families who would be excluded from the benefits of the tax bill. They discuss being dually taxed under the current system: first by the local tax authority where they currently reside and again by the United States. This is a legitimate problem and unfair for the roughly 9 million Americans living abroad. No other developed nation has such a system. As a member of the Americans Abroad Caucus, I have continued to support taking action so that U.S. citizens living abroad are not left with the choice of being drained of savings or having to renounce their citizenship due to unfair double taxation. Unfortunately, Congress has neglected to help this minority constituency for far too long. It is discouraging that the tax-writing committees would rather prioritize tax cuts on the foreign income of U.S. corporations than provide assistance to individual citizens abroad with tax reform. I condemn my colleagues who voted for the tax scam conference report that will shift money from hard working families in Nevada and around the globe to the wealthiest in the nation.

Ms. TITUS

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. My motion to recommit is just a commonsense measure that I believe everybody in this House can support because it would prevent the bad actors from being able to use the exemptions in the underlying bill to dodge the consumer protections that are found in both the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. My motion says if a lender has committed or engaged in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice under Federal law in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a financial product or service, or if they have been convicted of fraud under Federal or State law in connection with a residential mortgage loan, they cannot avail themselves of the bill's decreased requirements. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent the heart of the Las Vegas valley. More than 43 million visitors come to my district every year from all around the world to enjoy our first class resorts, hotels, entertainment, and the natural beauty around us. It is also, though, home to over 2 million people. Less than a decade ago, southern Nevada, unfortunately, had the additional distinction of being at the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis that was caused by the Great Recession. At its peak, nearly 70 percent of all homes in the Las Vegas valley were under water, and the foreclosure rate was five times the national average. For 62 straight months, Nevada led the Nation in foreclosures and delinquent mortgages. This is the number--just think about this--219,000 foreclosures occurred during that period. Newspapers from coast to coast read like obituaries as home after home was boarded up, homelessness skyrocketed, and major developments along the Las Vegas strip that were under construction went belly-up, leaving high-rise rusting skeletons in the middle of the desert. We lost 80,000 construction jobs during that period. We were one of the first States to be hit so hard by the recession and one of the last States to recover. But housing prices are coming back and new construction is taking place. Unfortunately, it seems that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to turn back the clock and go back to the abusive practices, including predatory lending, that contributed to the Great Recession. Supporters of this legislation--you have heard them--say it is needed to provide relief for smaller sized institutions and smaller sized mortgage servicers. But that is really the red herring here. The CFPB has already, as you heard too, provided a targeted exemption to cover those folks. This bill is really about protecting the large servicers that failed to provide necessary loan documentation and to communicate openly with their customers, in turn contributing to millions of unnecessary disclosures and settlements for abusive business practices during the financial crisis. Nevada, in fact, had to bring lawsuits against financial institutions like Countrywide and Bank of America that engaged in this predatory lending. My motion to recommit would ensure that such lending practices and loan servicing activities cannot resurface at the expense of consumers. This is especially important also in light of the fact that at the same time we are eroding consumer protections put in place after the financial crisis, my Republican colleagues are also simultaneously taking away affordable housing from my constituents. The ``Job Cuts and Tax Act'' passed by this House eliminates tax-exempt private activity bonds, a move that will stifle investments in affordable housing. The Nevada Housing Division, for example, has already suspended its mortgage credit certificate program which provides an average of $2,000 a year in Federal income tax savings to first-time home buyers and veterans because of the threat of this provision. Furthermore, multifamily housing bonds make affordable housing possible for seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, and low- income families. Without the tax exemption on these bonds, Nevada can lose up to 7,000 rental homes. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask you: How can this body pass a bill that eliminates affordable rental homes; makes ownership more expensive for first-time home buyers; and opens the door, again, to predatory lending practices that target low-income borrowers and put them at risk of foreclosure? This mix of anticonsumer and antiaffordable housing policies does not bode well for a country that suffered a housing crisis just a decade ago, so I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.