On the recordJune 4, 2015
We have heard a lot of things that, by the way, you will notice, at very few times actually deal with language in the mark, the language in the bill. By the way, for example, that this is going to hurt American jobs. To argue, Mr. Chairman, that American companies will benefit from trafficking in stolen property that was stolen from American companies I think is probably the definition of an oxymoron, number one. Number two, there is a lot of obfuscation. The language in the bill doesn't say that Americans can't travel. The language says that they cannot use trafficking in, make a profit from, property that was stolen from Americans. Stolen from Americans. So I understand that the gentleman says that his property rights record is as good as any, but, Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill deals with a specific issue, and one specific issue alone: Should we condone, should we allow, should we permit, should we encourage the trafficking, the profiting from stolen property--property that was confiscated from Americans, whether there are certified claims or not. If you support this amendment, Mr. Chairman, you are saying it is okay for folks to traffic in property that was stolen from Americans, illegally stolen from Americans. I think, frankly, that is a sad day. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
