Kelly Armstrong

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Duncan's amendment to strike from the bill section 436, which prohibits the issuance of an import permit for a sport-hunted trophy of an elephant or lion taken in Tanzania, Zimbabwe, or Zambia. Simply put, this import prohibition would harm the economic development of African countries and put the wildlife and habitat in those countries at risk. This is exactly what the Zambian Foreign Minister told me when I met with him: Regulated, sustainable hunting can be used for economic development just like any other natural resource. And in the vast majority of instances, hunting revenue and game fees are the greatest and most accessible asset for rural people. By creating a market for regulated hunting of these animals, African countries promote conservation and undermine incentives for illegal poaching. A U.S. import ban undermines those markets in African countries, which perpetuates unsustainable poaching, underground markets, poverty, and economic underdevelopment. The individuals who seek to prevent African countries from responsibly using their natural resources are the same who strive to end the production of agriculture in States like North Dakota. They impart a flawed moral view on others without understanding the economic and cultural ramifications that harm the communities that produce these resources. It is paternalistic and, quite frankly, it is condescending and, in fact, counterproductive to a robust conservation of the magnificent animals and the habitat in which those animals live. Hunters and sportsmen are truly the world's best conservationists, and the resources we deploy go toward anti-poaching programs; defend against destruction of vital habitat; and incentivize local communities to come together to protect their wildlife. I urge the adoption of the Duncan amendment, which will promote sustainable hunting markets with African countries.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the balance of the time of the minority.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, when the Democratic majority in the House won't accept any of the Republican amendments and the Democratic minority in the Senate won't accept any of the 20 amendments that Senator Tim Scott offered, I think it is a little disingenuous to say that Majority Leader McConnell is the problem towards bipartisanship here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).

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 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I sat through this through a committee hearing, a markup, a Rules Committee, and all day here today, and I have heard a lot about how now is the time for bold action and now is the time for transformational change. But what we don't spend nearly enough time talking about is whether what we are doing and what law we are passing is actually good policy, whether this policy will work in as diverse communities as we have from one end of this great Nation to another. If there was ever a subject that requires nuanced and thoughtful deliberation, police reform is it. Unfortunately, we seem to be incapable of that in this town at this time. That is unfortunate because the American people want reform, and that reform has to start with the basic recognition that 2 million out of 2.3 million people who are incarcerated in this country are incarcerated in State and local prisons and this inherently becomes a community action. Law enforcement is mostly a local function. And when we are talking about reform, we must always recognize that these laws must work at 2:30 a.m. in dangerous, unpredictable, and often violent situations, whether that officer is patrolling downtown Washington, D.C., or he is on a rural North Dakota road where backup is measured in hours and not minutes. We can move quickly and thoughtfully. We can work toward policies that hold bad officers and derelict departments accountable without making it harder for good cops to do their jobs. Part of how we do that is by recognizing some uncomfortable truths. I will be the first one to say that systemic racial disparities exist in our criminal justice system, not just in law enforcement, but throughout, whether it is in pretrial release programs, charging decisions that determine minimum mandatory sentences, facially neutral enhancements that have disparate impacts on minority communities. But we also need to recognize the truth that, when we talk about these things, we have been talking about them for years and long before President Trump was elected. In fact, if your claim is historical and systemic racism, then it is sometimes hard to believe that all of these occurred as of January 3, 2017, when President Trump took office. For all the good intentions, we have to recognize the fact that this bill is not just going to chase bad cops out of the business, but it is going to dissuade good people from continuing in law enforcement. And that is going to make our communities less safe. This bill makes it easier to sue law enforcement. It makes it easier to prosecute cops, all cops, not just bad cops. It ensures that there is a public database of all complaints, whether they are completely frivolous or not. It takes away their ability to use equipment, whether they need it or not. It takes away the ability for officers to use lifesaving tools, whether they need it or not. Combined with what is going on, and a combination between peaceful protests and violent rioting, I have a friend and officers in Minneapolis just this week have responded to calls where they are being spit on and had bottles thrown at them where they are responding to murders. To say that these types of policies and this type of rhetoric is not going to chase good people out of this profession is just not true. Republicans in the Judiciary Committee did offer substantive and quality amendments. We offered amendments to require recordings of noncustodial interviews to enhance the use of body cameras by Federal officers. We offered what I consider is reasonable collective bargaining reform so that bad cops can actually get fired from their jobs. We exempted our Border Patrol from the ban on the purchase of surplus military equipment. We also even offered an amendment for a ban on no-knock warrants. We just asked to collect the data during the process while we were doing it. So to say that everything we offered and what we tried to accomplish either here or on the other side was not relevant to the conversation just simply isn't true. But there are things we agree on. We agree with body cameras for law enforcement. We agree that more transparency is the best thing. Congresswoman Bass has talked a lot--and I think this is actually accurate--we wouldn't know a lot about these things without cell phone cameras and what has gone on. That is a reality that exists. But the other reality that exists is that we all are functioning in a digital society. Asking our Federal law enforcement to come into the 21st century along with us is not a terribly irrelevant nor unreasonable request. We agree with making sure we have a way to track officers. We don't necessarily agree on the exact specifics, but there is a way to get there. I think everyone agrees that more de-escalation training is incredibly important, and that doesn't matter if you are in a diverse community or not. Everybody who has talked to law enforcement knows they deal with way too many mental health issues. We agree with those resources. We all want to hold bad cops accountable and departments that have too many bad incidents accountable. Many of us on our side agree with qualified immunity reform. I tend to agree with my friend Congressman Roy when he said we want significant reform. I would also argue we need to replace it with something. The problem with no-knock warrants isn't that they are there; it is that they are overused. The problem with military equipment isn't that it is utilized; it is that, in some departments, it is overused. But if we continue to paint with a broad brush all of these things and have it affect every department, regardless of how urban or rural in nature, regardless if they have a history of abuse or none at all, then we run into the real risk of alienating the people who most closely and most want reform. I will end on something that I think is fairly hopeful, and I do have hope because I think this is the most criminal justice reform in Congress we have ever seen. There are Members on both sides of the aisle who are serious about marijuana legislation. If you want to talk about a system in the criminal code that has a disparate racial impact, I am not sure you need to go a whole lot further than marijuana reform. We have had people on both sides of the aisle who have done the juvenile justice act, the justice reinvestment act, trial penalties, clemency for unduly harsh prisons. We have a lot of places we can do that. I think it bears repeating, and I just truly, truly mean this. The FIRST STEP Act, which was passed by the last Congress that was bicameral, bipartisan, and advocated for by this President, is the single most important criminal justice reform that has probably ever come out of this Congress. I don't say that from being a Republican politician. I say that from practicing Federal criminal defense under both the Bush administration and the Obama administration. So in 3 years at the Federal level, we have gotten more done. But it is called the FIRST STEP Act for a reason, because there is a second step. I have had the opportunity through all the rhetoric and all the partisan fighting and everything, I have also gotten to meet great, thoughtful people on both sides of the aisle. And people on my side of the aisle who, as short a time ago as several years, didn't believe in some of these things believe in them now. It is not just in the Federal Government. States all across the country, from Colorado to New Jersey to North Dakota to Texas, are doing criminal justice reform. They are doing it thoughtfully and moving it forward. I find it unfortunate that we are going to be here and that we couldn't have this conversation. We are going to do what we do so well in this town: talk and talk and talk and then fail to have action on anything that has a realistic chance of becoming law. I think, unfortunately, that is where this is going. But I do have hope because I know there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who truly want to work on this. You don't have to go very far; 350 Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have already cosponsored bills related to criminal justice reform. So, we will get this done, maybe not as soon as we could have, but I am hopeful we will rise to the moment.

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

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

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

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my friend.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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

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

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

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, throughout our history, the American people have mobilized in extraordinary and unprecedented ways in times of national crisis, but the enemy we face today has required a different response. To defeat COVID-19, we have asked most Americans to do what comes so unnaturally to them: stay home. We have asked businesses to shutter, employees to stop going to work, and churches to close. Entire industries have lost their consumer base overnight. The American people didn't cause this crisis but are responding the way they always do: by being smart, tough, and compassionate. We owe it to them to give them this support.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, to my colleagues on both sides who think that this bill doesn't go far enough, I can tell you that, probably 3 days ago, I was 100 percent in your camp. If you would have told me today I was going to stand up and speak in favor of this bill, I would have told you that is not true, yet here I am. The reason is because I think we are dealing with some issues that are important to discuss: One, there is no legislation that we can write that will make bad actors not be bad actors. There is no amicus provision or any provision that is going to allow for somebody who is going to lie to their own superiors to not lie to somebody else. Two, the provisions of lone wolf and roving wiretaps are incredibly important to national security. There is not a lot of debate amongst those things. Three, FISA and title 1 were originally designed because of abuses to civil rights. We know that title 1 has been abused, and that is why we are here. But are we better off without title 1? I don't think so. We weren't before. We are better off with it. So what does this bill actually do that is important, that is why a guy like me who believes in the Fourth Amendment, believes in the First Amendment, and believes in the privacy of our citizens, why would I stand here? Because it increases transparency; it moves it through the process faster; it puts real compliance checks in place; and it holds people accountable both through a contempt proceeding and enhanced criminal penalties. When we are dealing with something as important as civil liberties, I think we have to ask the question: Are we better off tomorrow than we are today? This bill puts us in a better position tomorrow than it did yesterday.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the bill is pretty simple. The opening is the closing. This is one of those times where I think common sense prevails. We are not increasing visas. We are continuing a strong relationship between Ireland and the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2877, a bill to add Ireland to the E-3 nonimmigrant visa program. As we approach St. Patrick's Day, this bill recognizes the unique friendship and working relationship between the United States and Ireland. H.R. 2877 allows nationals of Ireland to be eligible to apply for unused E-3 nonimmigrant visas subject to Ireland providing reciprocal access to U.S. nationals. Holders of the E-3 temporary work visa must be working in a specialty occupation while in the United States. A specialty occupation is one that is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act as requiring: One, ``theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and Two, ``attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty, or its equivalent, as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.'' The E-3 applicant must have a job offer from an employer in the United States, and that employer must get a foreign labor certification from the U.S. Department of Labor prior to filing a petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. H.R. 2877 also requires that employers using Irish E-3 visa holders in their workforce are, and will remain, participants in good standing in the E-Verify program. This means that such employers must use E- Verify to ensure those that they employ are eligible to work in the United States. E-3 nonimmigrant visas are currently only available to nationals of Australia and are capped at 10,500 per year. Australian nationals have never used all of the 10,500 authorized visas in a given year, nor have they even come close to doing so. In fact, the highest number used was during the last fiscal year when 5,807 were issued. H.R. 2877 provides that nationals of Ireland can utilize the visas not used by Australians in a given calendar year. For operational purposes, the visa can be issued for the following year but will be counted against the previous year's cap. So the bill does not increase the number of visas authorized and allows Australia, for whose nationals the program was originally created, to have first access to those numbers. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2877 is a simple bill that reflects the continued friendship between Ireland and the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding, and I join the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) in urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can consider H. Res. 659. Hydraulic fracturing provides enormous benefits to the American people, including energy security, national security, economic growth, and reduced carbon emissions. The Baaken oil patch, stretching across western North Dakota, is an essential contributor to producing 1.5 million barrels of oil per day and over 2 billion cubic feet of associated gas per day. The United States is uniquely situated in the world economy. We are one of the very few if not the only country that is both food and energy secure. I am proud that North Dakota is a big part of that energy security. Let us not forget that a mere 10 years ago, if Iran would have shot down a U.S. drone, seized the British ship in the Strait of Hormuz, conducted a terrorist attack on a Saudi oil facility, and shot rockets at U.S. troops in Iraq, oil would have skyrocketed to over $115 a barrel and stayed there. Do you know what happened the day after those attacks? Oil went down $1.29. Fracking directly employs over 2 million Americans, including 35,000 people in my home State. In 2020, the U.S. is expected to become a net energy exporter. In 2019, we doubled our natural gas exports. Fracking offsets other carbon energy sources, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has noted was an important reason for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. With continued technological advancements like carbon capture storage and utilization, we can continue to develop these American energy reserves while decreasing carbon emissions. Simply put, America is stronger and our enemies are weaker because of fracking. Any attempt to ban or limit fracking makes us less safe and less prosperous. A fracking ban will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions--in fact, it will do the opposite--but it will destroy my entire State's economy and send us back to the days where we rely on OPEC to fuel our economy.