Kelly Armstrong

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Torres, Mr. Newhouse, and my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Cramer and Senator Hoeven. This is not the first time in my short time in Congress that I have been on the floor talking about this bill, and I think it is also important to remember people who came before us. Senator Heitkamp was a champion of this in the last Congress. And through this process we have gotten a more targeted and workable solution. This bill allows U.S. Attorneys in Indian Country more autonomy and authority that is important to law enforcement, and that is particularly important in missing cases. And I think it is also important to recognize that these don't always happen in rural areas or actually on the reservation. Savanna Greywind, while a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe, was in Fargo, North Dakota, the largest city in my State when this incident occurred. So this is a good bill, it has been a long time coming, and I really appreciate everybody's hard work. With that, I recommend we pass it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 227, Savanna's Act. Savanna's Act is named after Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind, a 22-year- old member of the Spirit Lake Tribe, who was murdered in my district in August of 2017. Her disappearance and murder devastated the community and the entire State of North Dakota. Tragically, Savanna was found dead 8 days after she was reported missing. Thankfully, her baby was found alive, despite being cut from Savanna's womb. Savanna's story brought to light the fact that the data regarding missing and murdered indigenous people, particularly women and girls, is scattered across various government databases, if it even exists at all. Savanna's heartbreaking story, unfortunately, is not unique. A woman named Olivia Lone Bear disappeared from the Fort Berthold Reservation just a month later, in October of 2017. She was found in a submerged truck in Lake Sakakawea in July of 2018. These are just two recent examples from my State. There are hundreds more across the Nation. Savanna's Act will begin to help address this crisis of missing and murdered indigenous people. The bill will establish guidelines and best practices for law enforcement agencies across the country. It will also improve coordination amongst those agencies. Finally, it will enhance reporting, recordkeeping, and communication for law enforcement and families of victims. This legislation is needed because Native American and Alaska Native women face a murder rate 10 times higher than the national average. Shockingly, 84 percent of women in these communities experience some form of violence in their lifetime. The rural nature of most Native American communities, increased levels of poverty and addiction, and other circumstances pose unique challenges. Because of outdated databases and lack of coordination between law enforcement agencies, there is no reliable way of knowing how many indigenous women actually do go missing each year. Savanna's Act addresses this disturbing increase in missing and murdered Native American women by creating new guidelines for investigation of these cases and by incentivizing the implementation of these new guidelines. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 227, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 982, the Not Invisible Act of 2019. We just discussed the appalling extent of missing and murdered indigenous women and how Savanna's Act will begin to address this issue. The Not Invisible Act is another step to solve this abhorrent problem. This bill provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to improve its efforts to combat the growing crisis of murder and trafficking and the disappearance of indigenous men and women. While there are many Federal programs tasked with addressing violent crime, the agencies that operate these programs do not have an overarching strategy to properly deploy these resources in Indian Country and in urban Indian communities. Program implementation often takes place without considering the unique needs of Native American communities in this context. S. 982 will require the appropriate agencies to coordinate prevention efforts, grants, and programs across the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice, among other stakeholders. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 982, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I don't think I could close any better than that, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1380, the Due Process Protections Act. This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that will reinforce constitutional protections for criminal defendants. This bill amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require a judge to issue a Brady order, reminding prosecutors of their obligation to disclose all evidence that is material to the case, especially exculpatory evidence. Although some judges already have a practice of issuing Brady orders, this bill will require all judges to issue it in all criminal proceedings. Our criminal justice system falls short when key evidence is withheld by prosecutors and revealed years later at a conviction. Due process is a fundamental right of all Americans; so is the right to a fair trial, protected by the Constitution and this bill helps guarantee that fundamental right. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5546, the Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act. As a defense attorney, I cannot overemphasize the importance of protecting attorney-client privilege. The ability to have confidential discussions with a client for the purpose of providing legal advice is foundational to providing effective assistance of counsel. This bill will help modernize our criminal justice system by extending attorney-client privilege to electronic communications sent or received through the Bureau of Prisons' email system. This will allow incarcerated individuals to communicate with their attorneys efficiently and privately. And it would prohibit the Bureau of Prisons from monitoring privileged email communications. We all agree that attorney-client privilege is a vital component of our legal system, as it helps to ensure that a criminal defendant has an effective advocate in the courtroom. Emails between incarcerated individuals and their attorneys should absolutely fall under attorney-client protections. This bill would protect the rights of incarcerated men and women to speak openly and honestly with their attorneys via email without fear that the prosecution is monitoring those communications. Other methods of communication, such as in-person meetings and letters, can be particularly burdensome and time consuming. Even if an attorney is in close proximity to the incarcerated client, it could take hours to travel to a detention facility and visit with that client. H.R. 5546 requires the Attorney General to ensure that BOP's email system excludes the contents of electronic communications between an incarcerated person and his or her attorney. The bill stipulates that the protections and limitations associated with attorney-client privilege, including the crime-fraud exception, apply to electronic communications. It does permit BOP to retain electronic communications until the incarcerated person is released but specifies that the contents may only be accessed under very limited circumstances. Finally, it allows a court to suppress evidence obtained or derived from access to the retained contents if such access were granted in violation of the act. Congress must continually address the application of existing law to emerging technology. This is a commonsense application of existing law to a technology that is decades old. It is time we act. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 5546, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do appreciate this bill, and the only question I sometimes have is that it seems like email has been around for a long time, and we are just getting to it, but better later than never. But I also think it is really important to recognize a lot of these cases are public defense cases. You will have public defenders who have bigger caseloads than we would like sometimes and clients that don't necessarily trust the system. This is good for defendants. This is good for lawyers. This is good for overall faith in the criminal justice system. It protects people, and it doesn't just protect the client who that public defender is recognizing. It helps all of his other clients if he or she can communicate with all of their clients quicker and more efficiently. This is a really good bill. I urge everybody to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1321, the Defending the Integrity of Voting Systems Act. This bill will protect our Nation's most sacred democratic process by making it a Federal crime to hack any voting system used in a Federal election. Protecting our Nation's election process from bad actors must be a top priority of Congress. In 2018, the Department of Justice's Cyber-Digital Task Force issued a report finding that election systems were not adequately protected by Federal law. This bill is a bipartisan response to address the problems identified by the task force. Bad actors who attempt to interfere in our elections must be punished for their actions. As someone who spends a lot of time here talking about where crimes fit in the State and Federal place, and oftentimes I think we overreact as a Federal Government and interfere in things that I believe should be left to the States, I think this is the opposite of that. An election in North Dakota can have consequences across the country. An election in Texas can have consequences across the country. This is written in a way that it deals with Federal elections and any machines used in those. It is a good piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is based off of task force findings. It is narrow, and it does what we need it to do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at a time when violent extremists are destroying cities nationwide, our Democratic colleagues here in the House continue to ignore this violence. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee even called Antifa violence a myth and imaginary. Instead of addressing violent leftwing extremism head-on, my colleagues across the aisle only want to use this bill for political purposes. They are not interested in passing legislation that would make any real difference in rooting out violence in our communities. Democrats are unable to call out the violent anarchists who are burning down cities all around the country. Instead, they seem to want to paint a picture that ties only conservatives to domestic terrorism. Not only is this bill blatantly political on its face, but it increases our already bloated bureaucracy by adding three new separate offices to do the exact same thing. That is the very definition of duplication and government waste. We already have dedicated law enforcement who fight domestic terrorism every day, and we should recognize them, commend them, and let them do their jobs. Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle likely will not do that either. Democrats must end the partisan charades. Democrats must stop ignoring the leftwing violence and crime that has taken over American cities. Instead of this biased approach in this bill, we should pass legislation that roots out all kinds of domestic terrorism, not just the type that is politically convenient for Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 5602, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I was in the committee when we did this and when we accepted Republican amendments and garnered some support from people on my side of the aisle in committee. I have no doubt that my friends on the other side of the aisle condemn all kinds of violence, but somewhere between committee and here things got added to the bill. Mr. Speaker, do you know what didn't get added? Not one mention of the horrific attack against two police officers shot at pointblank range in their patrol car. The bill did not mention the murder of a Trump supporter in Portland. But we did manage to mention the juvenile from Kenosha. So, while the gentlewoman says she supports a certain thing or nobody condones certain things, their actions on how this occurs show us where their priorities are. The priorities are political because we could have added all of these things. I find it interesting and odd on the same day that we are talking about due process, rights to effective assistance of counsel, justice for juveniles, and all the election integrity and voting, we don't condemn the burning down of the post office in Minneapolis. We don't talk about these other things, but we will make sure we mention a juvenile offender in Kenosha prior to any of his court hearings being held. We can talk about delaying justice and the administration of justice, but that is not how it reads in the bill, and that is not how it was spoken to on the floor. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do this, all I ask is that we are consistent. The gentlewoman can stand here and say that we condemn all forms of violence, but only one made it into the bill after committee. That is because it fits a particular political narrative, and we have no interest in actually rooting out domestic terrorism wherever it exists. We want to make sure it fits a particular narrative. That is what this bill is about, and that is why we should oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1600, the Stop FGM Act of 2020. This bill outlaws a practice that is recognized internationally as a human rights violation, and even torture. It is an extreme form of discrimination against women and girls. Unfortunately, half a million girls and women worldwide are subject to this torture or at risk for it. I am sure most people assumed that FGM was already illegal. It was. In 1996, Congress prohibited the practice of FGM. But in 2018, a Federal judge in Michigan dismissed charges against a doctor and others from a local Indian Dawoodi Bohra community involved in the mutilation of nine young girls. The judge ruled that the Federal Government does not have the power to regulate FGM. Since that time, the Justice Department has been able to stop these acts of violence against America's young girls. This bill will amend title 18 to make FGM that is performed for nonmedical reasons a crime and overturn the judge's decision by explicitly describing the constitutional basis for banning FGM under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I think all my colleagues can come together and support this important bipartisan bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6100. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I watched the wrestling video and I hear the stories from a school in Texas or Banana Republic, and I find these things horrible. I don't think you can find any Member in this Chamber who doesn't find racial discrimination to be repugnant and inconsistent with basic standards of human decency. What Democrats and Republicans also agree on is that using hairstyles as an excuse for engaging in racial discrimination is wrong and is already illegal under Federal civil rights law, and I think that is where we come to a little bit of a disagreement. If a school administrator in Texas can't find title VII, he is not going to find this language in addition to title VII. In 1973, the Supreme Court held that using a pretextual reason as cover for undertaking an action prohibited by Federal civil rights laws is, nonetheless, a violation of Federal civil rights laws. As early as 1976, Federal courts held that discrimination on the basis of a hairstyle associated with a certain race or national origin may constitute racial discrimination. Looking at both this bill and the law, it appears to me that the behavior that we are seeking to make illegal is already illegal. However, both at markup and on the floor, our colleagues have made impassioned arguments about why this bill is necessary, even though we all agree that the activity that we are already talking about is already illegal. That doesn't take anything away from the discrimination or the embarrassment that any of those young men or women have felt in any of those incidents, but I am not sure the bill solves the problem, and that is why I wish the committee had taken time to examine whether the bill is either redundant or necessary. Our committee should have held a hearing with alleged victims of the sort of discrimination that the Democrats argue this bill is designed to help. Our committee should have had a hearing with some legal scholars and individuals responsible for enforcing our Nation's civil rights laws to determine if this bill will achieve what it is intended to do. Schools, employers, and other entities covered by Federal civil rights laws can have race-neutral policies that everyone must follow. They can also have race-neutral policies that have a disparate racial impact, and those are the places we need to address. This is particularly true when the policy is necessary for critical functions of the job. There is a reason firefighters have mustaches but not beards, and that is because you have to wear an SCBA. You can't wear the mask if you have a beard. Our committee should have examined how this bill would affect the ability of schools, employers, and other entities to maintain such policies. But we never had a hearing; we just had a markup. Chairman Nadler brought this bill straight to markup, and now we are on the floor today without any legislative hearing. I am not even sure it is a bad idea. But I would like to know if it is not redundant. I would like to know what the unintended consequences are. And there are real reasons why, when you are dealing with civil rights law, particularly on something that has already been agreed on that is illegal--enforcement and legality are two different things, and we just don't know enough about what we are doing or why it is necessary. So, I would ask that we oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will say that the stories we hear, and the things are terrible, but this is a problem of education and not legislation. And it is more than that. Without having these hearings, without understanding this, without understanding where in our current law that we don't already make this conduct and this pretextual racial conduct illegal, we essentially are saying that we are--I mean, making something illegal twice isn't going to change somebody's mind if it was already illegal once, and I think that is the mistake we are making here. It is not about the conduct and the underlying conduct and those types of things, it is about what we are trying to accomplish, how we are doing it, and the process in which we do it. The sentiment is there, and I can't disagree with any of these stories, I just don't think this bill solves the problem they are trying to solve. And I don't think we have nearly enough evidence to show that it does. So with that, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, if there is a bill that more accurately reflects the failure of Democratic leadership for my first 2 years in Congress, I don't know what it is. I know that because I came to Congress knowing of the problems with the Postal Service. I am the only Republican on the Oversight and Reform Committee who cosponsored the Democrats' bill to remove the prefunding of their pensions. I have been working on this, been curious about it, and have cared about it for a very long time. I supported former Chairman Cummings' and Mark Meadows' bipartisan solution for the Postal Service because I represent a rural State, and privatization is bad for my constituents. But do you know how important this has been to the Oversight and Reform Committee? Our last hearing on the Postal Service was in April of 2019. But somehow, we have decided that because the previous Postmaster General who was appointed in 2015 and didn't resign until June and did something unique in this town--made sure just about everybody hated her. But now we are saying this all blew up last week. But it didn't. I know it didn't because you can Google postal problems in any jurisdiction from one end of this country to the other and you know they have existed before. But instead we will come to the floor, debate a bill offered and sponsored by the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, we will vote on it today, and then we will have a hearing on Monday about the bill. So before we even talk about the fact that we are giving $25 billion to an organization that already has $25 billion cash on hand, and regardless of how you feel about this, $25 billion does not deliver votes, and we have no ability to do this. We are doing this in a way that is completely and utterly political theater because anybody who has been paying attention knows that the post office problems are chronic, they are not acute. They have lost $70 billion since 2007, and they lost $9 billion in 2019. So my question is: Why haven't we been having hearings on this in the Committee on Oversight and Reform for the 2 years I have been here?

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

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

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2163, the Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys Act. I want to thank Senator Rubio for his leadership on this bill in the Senate and Representative Wilson for her leadership in the House. I want to say a special thanks to my friend, Congresswoman McBath, for utilizing such a personal and tragic story toward a positive outcome. It is great to be here with the gentlewoman this morning. This bill establishes a commission within the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights dedicated to studying conditions and disparities that both Black men and boys face. The commission will study issues such as arrest and incarceration rates, poverty, homicide, school performance, disparate income levels, and health issues. Congressional leadership, the President, and the executive agencies will appoint at least 19 members to serve on this bipartisan commission. Those members are charged with developing policy recommendations, documenting trends, and issuing an annual report aimed at reducing the adversity confronting Black men and boys across this Nation. These reports and recommendations will assist Congress and the rest of the Federal Government in creating policies to address these issues. The bill mandates political parity among the members of the commission in an effort to reduce the potential for political partisanship and bias. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, declares that all men are created equal, and the eastern facade of the Supreme Court pronounces equal justice under the law. However, we all know inequality still exists. As a defense attorney, I saw how sentencing disparities on drug crimes, minimum mandatory sentencing, school zone sentencing enhancements, and pretrial release policies often had disparate racial impacts. By creating a bipartisan commission to study inequality in government programs, we take the necessary steps to identify and address disparities for Black American men and boys. This bill will help ensure that we make meaningful progress in creating a more free and equal country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We also have the STATES Act, which enjoys a huge bipartisan cosponsorship among members of the Judiciary Committee. I think it is unfortunate that sometimes we choose partisanship and gamesmanship over passing what I think is one of the most criminal justice reform-minded and drug reform-minded Congresses that has ever set foot in Washington, D.C., and there is a bill that actually would have the potential to possibly become law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I am not an expert on all of these issues, but I do know quite a bit about criminal justice. It is important to recognize that a lot of things we are talking about in these bills are delivered at the local level, whether it is criminal justice, whether it is education, whether it is any of those types of things. This isn't about percentages and data points. This is about communities, and this is about people. But at no time in history have we been better able to collect information in a more usable way. When I served in the State senate in North Dakota, I was the chair of what we call our Justice Reinvestment Committee. And what we found out very shortly was that our data was all over the place. In order to make smart, effectuating change and provide localities and States and communities with the proper information so they can target where they can really do the most good--oftentimes on strained budgets and just different areas--it is important that studies like this come out because there are things we can do in Congress. To be quite frank, we are behind the game. Conservative and liberal States all across the country have started on this, and they started before us--States like North Dakota, States like Colorado, States like Mississippi. It is our job to get in the game. It is our job to provide them with the information we can. And, yes, we will make reforms here, but we will also give them the tools and the data so they can really take a deep dive into their own communities and figure out where they can best serve their constituents and where they can start getting rid of these institutional racial disparities that exist, whether it be in the criminal justice system, whether it be in education, whether it be in healthcare. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.