Kelly Armstrong

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, throughout the consideration of this bill in committee, at Rules, and now here, several of my Democratic colleagues have argued CERCLA liability only attaches to two legacy chemicals, and we don't have to worry about others. Unfortunately, that is not the case. This bill requires regulatory determination on 9,250 different chemicals, individually or in groups, on whether they will be CERCLA hazardous substances. My colleagues argue that people don't have to worry about Superfund liability if they don't cause environmental harm. This argument is false. Superfund liability is strict liability. If a party has any involvement, they are liable, period, end of story. That strict liability is what causes concern and is why Mr. Burgess offered an amendment to make only those who cause the pollution pay for its cleanup. For some reason, the majority found issue with that amendment and prevented its commonsense consideration. If there is interest on the other side of the aisle in changing the overall rules of Superfund liability, I am sure we would be happy to consider it. Short of that improvement, my colleagues should not take comfort that only reckless, willful, or irresponsible parties will be held liable under future CERCLA designations.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 217, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 216, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 215. Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress Amodei (Balderson) Buchanan (LaHood) DeSaulnier (Matsui) Fulcher (Simpson) Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX)) Granger (Calvert) Grijalva (Stanton) Johnson (TX) (Jeffries) Jones (Williams (GA)) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Lawson (FL) (Evans) McEachin (Wexton) Meng (Jeffries) Napolitano (Correa) Payne (Pallone) Rogers (KY) (Fleischmann) Ruiz (Correa) Rush (Underwood) Salazar (Cammack) Stewart (Curtis) Titus (Connolly) Van Drew (Reschenthaler) Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, you can put American behind Equinor. It doesn't make it an American company. It is a Norwegian company that used to be called Statoil; now it is called Equinor that has American operations. You can put American behind Shell. It doesn't make it an American company. It is a Dutch company who has its own legal problems in its own court that has American operations. I appreciate both of them. At times they have done business in North Dakota; they have been great corporate citizens. You can talk about Exxon and you can talk about BP; you can talk about Shell. But let's be careful when we talk about all companies big and small that support this industry, because the one caveat with all of these companies--and this is true--the vast majority of their production does not occur onshore and most often does not even occur in the United States. And so what does that mean? They are not subject to this CRA. Small and medium-sized gas companies do not support this regulation. North Dakota oil and gas companies do not support this regulation. And it is not because they are interested in polluting. It is because they don't want to be duplicatively regulated from the wellhead to the market. States are already doing this. We have heard this from New Mexico. North Dakota is regulating this. We have our industrial cushion; we have our DEQ. But the real problem with this EPA regulation and these Obama-era policies coming back is not only its duplicative regulation, but it actually stifles innovation; because the one thing State regulators can do significantly better than the Federal Government is respond quickly--adapt. So when an industry comes to you and says, Hey, I have a way to do this better, they will work with you, they will get it done. We see it happen every day in the Oil Patch in western North Dakota. The problem is Federal regulation at its very core is unwieldy, it is burdensome, and it gives a tremendous market share advantage to large companies over smaller companies. We need to stop duplicative regulation. We need to allow industries to regulate and States to innovate and regulate. And we know this because we have heard it a lot. If the market is demanding, companies are going to do it. Why do we need the burdensome Federal regulation?

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, June 5, the Dickinson High School girls softball team capped off an extraordinary season by winning the North Dakota Class A State Championship. Dickinson had 13 hits, and Mataya Mortensen's dominant pitching performance led to the team's first-ever State title. Dickinson's 10-0 win was their 30th in 33 games. Mortensen surrendered only two hits in the shutout. And senior Paige Balliet ended the game with a walk-off double to trigger the 10-run rule. Dickinson finished the season with 30 and 3. They had 487 hits, 110 doubles, 19 triples, and 51 home runs. Their team batting average was .464, and they averaged 14.5 runs a game, contrasted with a team ERA of 1.42 and 250 strikeouts in 196 innings. Both Taya Hopfauf and Jenna Decker were named to the all-State team, and Coach Amanda Mickey was named coach of the year. Congratulations to the entire team on a great year, especially Paige Balliet and Madison McChesney.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognizing the unique nature of the State of North Dakota. In 1993, the Voter Registration Act passed and there were six States that did not have voter registration. And so, rightfully so, under thoughtful and considered language, they exempted the States who didn't have voter registration from the Voter Registration Act. Well, now we are in 2021, and the only State in the country that doesn't have voter registration is the State of North Dakota. So as this process has been going on and the different fights that exists, which I agree with my colleagues on this side of the aisle on a lot of those issues, we find ourselves in a fairly unique position in that the intent of what people are trying to do with this bill would have actually made it more difficult in a lot of cases in North Dakota for how we do things. We are proud of our quirky board of elections system. I will just tell you, when I served in the State legislature, I was the chair of the State Senate Judiciary Committee, which was in charge of election law. And North Dakotans are very proud of it. I also served as the State party chair for 3 years, so I was very frustrated by the fact that we didn't have voter registration. So even in my own background, I had conflicting views on this. Madam Speaker, I just appreciate the ability of everybody working together because this is really important to my State, and it would fundamentally alter things, and not in a good way.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, what happened last Wednesday is an absolute tragedy. Not only are we part of dealing with it now, we were part of it then. When emotions are frayed and tensions are this high, process matters more. It matters more now than it did before, and the reality is this. There are serious constitutional questions about these articles. Donald Trump is going to be President until January 20, and on January 20, Joe Biden is going to become President. But I am going to vote against impeachment, and that is going to give me credibility at home with my base. You are going to vote for impeachment, and that is going to give you credibility at home with your base. It is easy to point at me and blame me. It is easy for me to point at you and blame you. But on January 21, we are all going to be back here. So use that credibility. Go back and talk some hard truths to your people. I am going to do it. And we need to do a better job.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't have said it any better, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in 2016, Puerto Rico faced serious and increasing financial pressure brought on by significant debt and related obligations. In response to that financial crisis, Congress passed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act of 2016. This 2016 law set up a bankruptcy mechanism for Puerto Rico to address its obligations. Like other existing bankruptcy laws, the 2016 law enables bankruptcy professionals, such as lawyers and consultants, to apply for payment for their services subject to court approval. But the 2016 law lacked certain disclosure requirements for professionals, even though these requirements apply to professionals in any other bankruptcy case. That gap in the law created the potential for unaddressed conflicts of interest for professionals involved in Puerto Rico's bankruptcy process. To address this concern, H.R. 683 establishes disclosure requirements for accountants, lawyers, and other bankruptcy professionals working on matters related to Puerto Rico's bankruptcy. The additional disclosure requirements in H.R. 683 increase the likelihood that any conflicts of interest will be caught and timely addressed before compensation decisions are made. Taken as a whole, this added level of transparency will benefit important interests, such as those of the creditors and taxpayers and ultimately of Puerto Rico itself. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon.)

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 134, the Combat Online Predators Act. This bill will give law enforcement officers additional tools to keep children safe from adults who stalk or target them both in person and online. This bill raises the maximum criminal penalty for stalking by an additional 5 years if the victim is a minor. In addition, the bill directs the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to produce a report evaluating Federal, State, and local laws that relate to stalking and to describe best practices for enforcing those laws. We must do everything in our power to protect the most vulnerable among us from digital predators. We must ensure that courts have the ability to sentence convicted stalkers to an appropriate prison term. This bipartisan bill will help to protect our Nation's children from online predators, give their families peace of mind, and make our communities safer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), my friend.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, technology has improved our lives in a myriad of ways, but it has also given bad actors more tools and, in many instances, stalkers can victimize their targets without ever leaving their home and a victim can often feel like they have nowhere to escape. I applaud the work of Senator Toomey and Congressman Fitzpatrick, who sponsored the House companion to this bill on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, with all of the concerns that exist, I think the goal of transparency and cost effectiveness are still worthy of this, and I urge support of the bill. 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, H.R. 8235, the Open Courts Act of 2020, will modernize the judicial branch and bring it sometimes kicking and screaming into the 21st century. First, the bill will update and streamline the Federal judiciary's case management system, ushering in much-needed improvements to the technological capabilities of the system. The bill will consolidate the judiciary's electronic court records system, establish certain data standards, and require the records system to follow those standards. These improvements to the case management system will increase the efficiency and improve the availability of court records to the American public. Second, the Open Courts Act will require that Federal court records are free and accessible. By ensuring that public records are freely accessible, this bill will bring increased transparency to our judicial process. The reforms contained in the Open Courts Act are not new ideas. Advocates of judicial transparency have long supported efforts to make court records free to the public. The Open Courts Act makes long overdue, commonsense reforms. This bipartisan legislation will expand the public's ability to not only find court records, but to access them as well. However, before I conclude my statement, I do want to note one thing. While this bill is bipartisan, the text was updated late last night. The bill now contains an additional eight pages and includes various changes to the text, specifically regarding redaction language of sensitive info. I understand why courts don't necessarily want this burden, and typically, under current process, filers are the ones who do the redactions, but now the text seems to be silent on the redaction of sensitive information altogether. I honestly don't know where that places the current policy, and the reason I don't know is because we were made aware of these changes less than 24 hours ago. This is not how a bipartisan bill is supposed to proceed, and it is a really good way to get a broad bipartisan bill to not become law. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. ARMSTRONG

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, successful prisoner reentry into society is critical to reducing recidivism, improving public safety, and saving taxpayer dollars. We have seen successful criminal justice reform programs, including reentry programs, work in both Republican- and Democratic-led States, including North Dakota. Successful reentry programs often utilize community-based groups like F5 in my home State. Likewise, President Trump has been a leader in criminal justice reform. He and his administration have signed bipartisan legislation, such as the First Step Act, to make our Federal criminal justice system fair. The First Step Act reauthorized programs that support State, local, and Tribal governments and nonprofit organizations in their work to reduce recidivism and to help people returning to society from incarceration. H.R. 8161, the One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act of 2020, will build on the administration's strong criminal justice reform initiatives. This bill will provide grants for the purpose of creating a unified location for reentry services in the communities that serve former prisoners. These facilities will include job training, counseling, substance abuse treatment, education, and medical services, among others. All of the data suggests that the most vulnerable time for someone being released from incarceration is within the first 30 days after release. I have seen this frustration firsthand as clients and offenders encounter unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles when trying to rebuild their lives. They must obtain housing, find a job, adhere to probation requirements, among many other tasks. That struggle is especially difficult when the individual suffers from substance abuse or, as Congresswoman Bass suggested, lacks even a high school education. These one-stop centers will help break the cycle of addiction and recidivism. This bill complements the recidivism reduction programs funded by the Second Chance Act and reauthorized by President Trump. I am pleased our colleagues recognize the administration's criminal justice successes and the bipartisan effort on these bills. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity to say this is a great bill and there are great people in government at the State, Federal, and local level who really do care and help to try and do these things, and we have come a long way in the last 5 to 10 years on a lot of these issues. But I think it is really important to recognize that, oftentimes, the best people in organizations to help people reenter into society are often former felons themselves who have gone through these processes and have started community-based organizations and have continued to work with new people coming out of prison. While we have to treat criminal justice and we have to treat serious offenses in the manner that is deserving of what they are, we also believe in rehabilitation; and what we do with that, particularly more than anything else, is a return on investment because, as we can get these people through this process and keep them out of the revolving door that can sometimes occur in the criminal justice system, we save people's lives, we save families, and we actually save taxpayer money. This is a great bill, and I appreciate everybody's work on it. Madam 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, S. 2258, the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act, like its House companion, H.R. 8226, protects whistleblowers who help the Federal Government investigate and prosecute criminal violations of antitrust laws. When workers give information to law enforcement, cooperate with criminal investigations, or testify about an employer's crimes, their employer may retaliate. Retaliation can take many forms, such as firing, demotion, suspension, or other types of retaliatory discrimination. Whatever its form, retaliation is wrong. Workers should not be punished when they help the authorities address criminal antitrust violations, violations that ultimately harm American consumers. If this retaliation goes unaddressed, it can have damaging long-term effects. For one thing, unaddressed retaliation can suppress future whistleblowers who might otherwise step forward to shine a light on any wrongdoing. When whistleblowers are scared to speak out, law enforcement may never learn of the criminal antitrust violations in the first place. Likewise, without the help from whistleblowers during investigations, law enforcement agencies may be unable to successfully prosecute wrongdoers. S. 2258 addresses these policy concerns by prohibiting retaliatory discrimination against whistleblowers who speak out against criminal antitrust violations. This bill also gives whistleblowers recourse if their employers do choose to retaliate. Under the bill, a whistleblower can file a complaint through a process the Department of Labor oversees and, in limited circumstances, seek relief by suing in Federal court. While establishing whistleblower protections, S. 2258 also puts important guardrails in place to ensure that bad actors do not abuse this law. The bill denies whistleblower protections to people who instigate the violation of criminal antitrust laws or obstruct an investigation. Instead, the bill will protect workers who are acting in good faith. Finally, I should note that our colleague, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, a cosponsor of the House companion bill, has worked throughout his career to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. He has described the general policy animating this bill and highlighted the importance of whistleblowers when he said that whistleblowers help maintain the integrity of our laws. Mr. Sensenbrenner is correct. 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, H.R. 8354, codifies the DOJ's Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative, the important work that our Department does to honor and support our Nation's veterans. The initiative coordinates with the Civil Rights Division and other Justice Department components to enforce Federal laws protecting servicemembers, veterans, and their families. These laws include the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The DOJ's enforcement of these laws has helped our men and women in uniform. For example, the Department reports that enforcement of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act has provided more than $474 million in relief for over 120,000 servicemembers whose rights were violated. Just last year, Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband announced the largest-ever settlement against a landlord or property management company for violations of the SCRA. This is important work that needs to continue. During the Trump administration, the Justice Department has expanded the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative by launching the Veterans' Access Initiative. The Veterans' Access Initiative focuses on accessibility issues for veterans and servicemembers under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA is an important tool for ensuring that those veterans who return from service with a disability can effectively reintegrate into civilian life. The Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative provides resources to the public and legal practitioners about Federal laws protecting servicemembers, veterans, and their families. The initiative also provides support and conducts outreach to servicemembers, veterans, and their families through the military departments. This is a good bill to codify an existing Justice Department program, and I encourage all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Taylor), my good friend.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. 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. 5053, the Justice for Juveniles Act. This bill eliminates some of the obstacles for juvenile prisoners seeking relief from our correctional facilities in Federal court. Juvenile offenders often lack the knowledge to pursue and exhaust all the complex administrative rules and grievance procedures in our correctional facilities. H.R. 5053 will provide juvenile offenders quicker access to courts when they feel they are being abused or mistreated. President Trump has been a leader on criminal justice reform. He signed into law the bipartisan First Step Act in December 2018. The President has also commuted the lengthy prison sentences of several nonviolent offenders and, more recently, pardoned Alice Johnson, who served 22 years of a life sentence for nonviolent drug trafficking. This bill is another important step in criminal justice reform. I was honored to be the Republican lead on this bill. It was a pleasure to work with Ms. Scanlon from Pennsylvania, the bill's primary sponsor. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good piece of bipartisan legislation. I agree with Ms. Scanlon; it is an important first step. But I also think it is important to recognize that, when we do place juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system, we are doing some things in a different way, and they have unique challenges that they face in those systems. This is neither the time, necessarily, nor the place for the larger debate, but I think the least we can do is exhaust some of those administrative remedies, given what we know. I was proud to be the Republican colead on this bill, and I look forward to its passage. 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, under current law, the health and dental insurance industries are exempt from some Federal competition laws and related enforcement actions. Congress established this exemption in 1945 at a time when Federal antitrust law was less developed and more likely to disrupt procompetitive practices in the insurance industry under State laws. H.R. 1418 would update antitrust law and apply it to the business of health insurance in ways designed to better protect consumers. At the same time, H.R. 1418 would still permit the health insurance industry to engage in procompetitive collaboration that benefits customers. Mr. Speaker, this bill represents another small step designed to improve America's healthcare system. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.