Trey Gowdy

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2076) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice of providing investigatory assistance on request of State and local authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2076, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOWDY. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, violent crimes that impact multiple victims in mass shootings in particular are unpredictable and, in addition to sending shock waves through the communities impacted, often test the resources of the State and local law enforcement jurisdictions involved. Regrettably, within our lifetime, there have been scores of mass shootings ranging from restaurants to high schools to universities and churches. No place is safe. There are no sanctuaries left any more, Mr. Speaker, in our culture. And despite the tremendous training, education, and hard work of the brave women and men in State and local law enforcement, these types of tragedies can test even the most well-resourced law enforcement agencies. Not only is there an active crime scene with victims, there are hundreds of pieces of forensic or ballistic evidence, and the gathering of evidence is taking place sometimes contemporaneous with the search for an assailant. There is a deep and rich history of cooperation and collaboration between and among law enforcement agencies. This is true at the local level, the State level and, indeed, at the Federal level. Federal law enforcement agencies have unique skill sets, access to resources and equipment and other investigative techniques that can and do assist smaller police departments on a regular basis. But, Mr. Speaker, currently the FBI does not have the specific statutory authority to assist in all investigations, specifically with respect to the investigation of mass shootings or other violent crimes occurring in non-Federal venues. H.R. 2076, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2011, is a commonsense bill that allows the FBI to provide assistance to State and local law enforcement authorities, if requested, in response to a mass shooting or other mass casualty. This bill addresses when the FBI is asked to assist State or local authorities with mass shootings and mass killings at a public place, such as a shopping mall or a school. The FBI has traditionally assisted State and local law enforcement authorities, but the statutory authority explicitly granting the FBI jurisdiction is lacking. To be sure, the FBI helps and is willing to help, but the absence of a specific statutory grant of jurisdiction, even jurisdiction by invitation, needs to be resolved. This bill is not an expansion of Federal authority, and it does not expand the authority of the FBI. Any assistance from the FBI must be requested by the State or local authority and agreed to by Federal authorities. The FBI will only assist when State or local counterparts ask for help and they agree to provide it. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, is simple, but it is also critical. State and local authorities often look to the FBI for assistance in handling large, violent crimes, but the FBI must look to Federal law to determine what authority it has been granted by Congress before it can offer assistance. Accordingly, H.R. 2076 gives the FBI the specific authority to respond to requests for assistance from State and local law enforcement authorities when mass killings or other acts of violence are committed or attempted. H.R. 2076, Mr. Speaker, was passed out of the House Judiciary Committee by a voice vote with broad bipartisan support. This bill is also supported by the FBI Agents Association, a voluntary professional association currently representing over 12,000 active duty and retired FBI special agents. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I would tell the distinguished former chairman of Judiciary, I am not aware of a single instance in my 16 years as a prosecutor where the FBI was asked to provide help and didn't do so, and I know that my friend from Michigan would want the FBI to be on solid, legal footing. So with respect to the shooting that you are referencing--and I fear that I am familiar with that shooting; I believe I read about it, the tragic loss of life of a wonderful high school young lady who happened to be a tremendous basketball player--the FBI agents that I know would gladly help in that case. And if the gentleman from Michigan wanted to provide a way for the Bureau to help whenever requested, I would be happy to work on that with him.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding and for his leadership on this and so many other issues. Mr. Speaker, the President says he wants to do a big deal. He says he wants to do something transformative. He wants to do something that will echo in eternity. And he's willing to risk his political career to get it done. History tells a very different story. In 2006, Senator Barack Obama joined 47 Senate Democrats in voting ``no'' on raising the debt ceiling. This, the first post-partisan President, cast a decidedly partisan vote in joining every single one of his colleagues in saying ``no'' to raising the debt ceiling. Did calamitous have a different definition in 2006? Was reneging on your debt somehow more palatable in 2006? Was the apocalypse not blowing in 2006? In 2007 and 2008, when again this body voted on raising the debt ceiling, the President, who was a Senator from Illinois, was absent for both votes. Fast forward to President Obama. He has proposed a budget that raises this debt by trillions of dollars, with no spending cuts, and then he famously invites our colleague, Paul Ryan, to the White House to lecture him on sensitivity and entitlement reform while offering absolutely no plan whatsoever on his own for entitlement reform. Then he said he wanted a clean debt ceiling increase, free from the nuisances of spending cuts, entitlement reform, and personal responsibility. How do you go from voting ``no'' on raising the debt ceiling to saying you want a clean increase in the debt, to now saying you want to do something transformative that echoes in eternity? Mr. Speaker, the President says he has a plan. Forgive our skepticism. I'd like to see the plan. I prefer cut, cap, and balance over punt, pass, and kick.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 338, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted, ``yes.''

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, last week, of course, we were in our respective districts, which means I was home in my beloved State of South Carolina. And while the bulk of that time was spent in the upstate, in Greenville, Spartanburg, and Union Counties, South Carolina is such a small State with a deep and rich tie throughout the various regions of the State that, even in a course of 1 week, Mr. Speaker, I was able to go to all six congressional districts in South Carolina at one point or another. South Carolina is full of natural beauty, from the mountains of the upstate to the beaches of our coastal region. South Carolina is home to hardworking, loyal, kindhearted and resilient people. We have wonderful schools, a world-class port, vibrant research universities, and highly regarded hospitals and medical centers. We have a depth and breadth of assets throughout the State of South Carolina, as well as the small businesses that are the backbone of this country and this economy. Mr. Speaker, South Carolina is among the first States to help other States when calamity strikes. We have a rich history of fighting and sacrificing, indeed, dying for this country. We are proud and brave, and we are not easily intimidated, which brings me to the National Labor Relations Board and its recent interactions with the State of South Carolina. At a time when union membership is at a historic low, unions seek to influence this administration in a historically high fashion. At a time when this Nation needs to come together and face the great challenges of our time, there are those in this administration who seek to benefit from the politics of class, generational and, now, regional conflict: from a Secretary of Health and Human Services who claims that our colleague's, Paul Ryan's, efforts to reform Medicare would cause seniors to die sooner when it is a demonstrably false statement, indeed, an abomination to say something so overtly political about a courageous colleague who has the foresight to try to save Medicare, from that to the NLRB and its general counsel and their efforts to intimidate the State of South Carolina, not once, but twice, with threatened lawsuits and now a complaint when a company decides to put an additional line of work in the great State of South Carolina. Boeing decided to build some of its new 787 Dreamliners in South Carolina. And nearly a year, Mr. Speaker, after the decision was made and construction had begun and, in some instances, been completed, after South Carolina workers received the good news that jobs were finally headed our way, the National Labor Relations Board decided to file a complaint. And it's important to keep in mind what is not at issue. There is no merit to the contention that Boeing did not negotiate in good faith with the union over the placement of a second line of work in South Carolina. No one seriously contends that. And, incredibly, there is no evidence that existing jobs will move from Washington State to South Carolina. Instead, the NLRB seeks to tell companies where it can and cannot build additional lines of work. Let that sink in for a moment. The National Labor Relations Board seeks to tell a company where it can and cannot build additional lines of work. So be forewarned: If you build a plant or a facility in a union State, there is the prospect that you will never be able to leave again if the NLRB has its way. And the law was clear, indeed, it is crystal clear: Employers are permitted to make predictions on future economic circumstances so long as the circumstances are demonstrably predictable. So is it predictable that there would be labor shortages and stoppages in Washington State? Well, Mr. Speaker, there have been four strikes since 1989 in the Washington State facility for Boeing, all of which support the movement of the entire 787 production line to South Carolina. But that's not what Boeing is doing. And I would commend, Mr. Speaker, the reading of the comments by a Boeing customer who said that the continued threatened work stoppages are causing it to reconsider whether or not it wants to do business with Boeing, and yet Boeing is not supposed to consider that when they decide where to build additional lines of work. Indeed, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, there will be two planes made in Washington State for every one plane made in South Carolina. But that is not enough for this administration. They want to control where businesses can locate, what they can make, and how much of it they can make. I want you to consider, Mr. Speaker, the comments of the NLRB spokesperson, and I quote: We are not telling Boeing they cannot make planes in South Carolina. We are talking about one specific line of work, three planes a month. If they keep three planes a month in Washington, there is no problem. Really? The National Labor Relations Board is going to tell Boeing how many planes it can make and in what State and what constitutes a problem and what doesn't constitute a problem? To my colleagues from the South Carolina delegation who have labeled this an unprecedented act, they are entirely correct. So what it appears now, Mr. Speaker, is that this administration and the National Labor Relations Board will elevate the unions to the same status as the employer; that all future decisions have to be made in concert; and if the unions object to a line of work that is separate and distinct, they can move to a right-to-work State like South Carolina, it cannot be done. Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by my distinguished colleague from the Fifth Congressional District, Mr. Mulvaney, and I would seek to yield such time as my colleague may consume.

Mr. GOWDY. While my colleague was talking so eloquently in defense of freedom, not in defense of South Carolina, but in defense of freedom and the freedom to pursue the free market, something as fundamental as that, we have been joined by our colleague from South Carolina, Congressman Jeff Duncan, and I would yield him such time as he may consume on this issue and any other issue on his heart.

Mr. GOWDY. My colleague from South Carolina raises the second issue, doesn't he? It wasn't just the complaint against Boeing. It was also the threatened litigation over South Carolina having the unmitigated temerity to want to memorialize the right to a secret ballot in the constitution of our State. Our voters voted to do that, to memorialize something as sacred in this country as the right to a secret ballot, and the reward for memorializing that in our constitution was threatened litigation by the NLRB. When our attorney general, Alan Wilson, fought back, the response was, Well, let's see if we can settle it. I think that's instructive because no sooner had the threatened litigation against Boeing been announced that there was another effort to want to settle it as if these are two private companies which are negotiating over an easement.

Mr. GOWDY. Not only, Congressman, had I heard about that, but I read a quote attributed to the NLRB just this week where they were advising Boeing and its counsel not to litigate this in the media. Imagine the arrogance of telling a company not to litigate something in the media. These are not two private parties. This is a government agency taking legal action against a private company, and then they advise not to discuss this in the media. Then the second thing--and I'd love to ask Congressman Mulvaney his thoughts on this--is that there was a quote attributed to a Senator who was advising the NLRB, Do not share your legal strategy publicly. Do not tell the other side what your legal strategy is. This is not a criminal case. This is not a civil case between two private companies. This is a government agency that is seeking to influence the business decisions of a private company, and they're getting legal advice from a Senator not to share their strategy with the other side.

Mr. GOWDY. To echo what both of my colleagues have already said, I would say this: Not only is there a tremendous natural climate and business climate in the State of South Carolina, but you will not find a group of people more appreciative for the right to work than our fellow citizens in South Carolina, who desperately need the work. ``Thank you'' to Boeing and to every other company that has been willing to take a chance on the people of South Carolina. We are not easily intimidated. One of my colleagues asked, What is the NLRB doing? Why now? I think we touched on it earlier. Union membership is at an historic low. At the same time, they seek to have an historically high level of influence with this administration. Mr. Mulvaney, there is no legal analysis by which the NLRB can hope to prevail in this case. This is a political calculus, so I would like in the few minutes we have remaining to discuss with both of my colleagues the remedy that the NLRB seeks; and it's instructive, I think, to set the chronology one more time. Boeing has been manufacturing airplanes in Washington State for at least two decades, and since 1989, there have been four work stoppages. I read a partial quote by a customer of Boeing's, saying, If the unions and the employers and management do not get together and stop the strikes, we are going to look somewhere else for our airplanes. So you're in a leadership position at a company, and you're being advised that the work stoppages--and there have been four of them--are going to impact your ability to get future business. You negotiate in good faith, and there has been not one scintilla of evidence to suggest that Boeing did not negotiate in good faith in Washington State. As our colleague Mr. Mulvaney pointed out, there is no allegation of bad faith. There is no allegation that Boeing did anything wrong other than seek to move to a right-to-work State. When they had planted a flag in a union State, they wanted to move a separate, distinct line of work to a right-to-work State in South Carolina. There are 2,000 more jobs in Washington State than there were, and the comments of the spokesperson for the NLRB are so terribly instructive: If you'll just build more planes in Washington State, we'll shut up about what you did in South Carolina. Can you imagine that? As a 16-year prosecutor, can you imagine my saying, ``Well, I'll excuse what you did here, if it were wrong, if you'll just do this instead''? If what Boeing had done were really wrong, the NLRB would not be seeking to settle this and negotiate out more work for the State of Washington, which is exactly what they're trying to do.

Mr. GOWDY. We saw firsthand when the automotive manufacturing company, BMW, decided to come to the upstate of South Carolina. I tell my colleagues, it transformed the upstate of South Carolina. Every now and again, you have an opportunity to have a company like a BMW or a Boeing or a Michelin or a Milliken or a GE that cannot just transform a community but, even more importantly, transform individual family lives by giving them the greatest of all family values--a job. Mr. Mulvaney is exactly right. We come from a State that has a rich and, in some instances, provocative history, but one thing that we all agree on, and it is every Member of this delegation, we represent people who want to work, and when you consider the consequences of this complaint, what are the remedies? Are they really going to ask Boeing to dismantle the plant that is under construction in North Charleston? Are they really going to tell Boeing, you cannot manufacture this line in this State? Or are they going to do what we really suspect that this is all about, which is negotiating strength so they can force Boeing to do more work in Washington State? ``We'll let you slide in South Carolina, but you've got to make it up to us in Washington State.'' That is not the business of this administration, and I applaud my colleagues, those that are here and those that were not able to join us tonight, because we are in one accord when it comes to standing up for the people and the workers and the State of South Carolina. I would yield to my colleague, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman of Oversight for his graciousness and leadership. Mr. Speaker, we have found consensus. Sweet, elusive consensus. We found it. Not in a final committee vote; that would be too much to ask. Not even in the testimony of the witnesses who came before the subcommittee. But we found consensus among the Members themselves, one after the other after the other who testified as to the power and the magic of education to transform not just their lives but generations of lives. I spoke with a distinguished Member from the other side of the aisle, a gentleman that I happen to like and respect very much and is one of the most powerful speakers in this body. And I will not call his name because the conversation was not public. But he recalled for me the day that he was sworn into office, and how his father came to him with tears streaming down his face. And some of the tears were the tears that only a father can have who is delighting in the success of a child. But some of the tears were also the acknowledgement that it could have been the father and not the son had the father not been born in the wrong town, at the wrong time, and in the wrong State, and, yes, in the eyes of our educational system of yesterday, the wrong race. It is that shared acknowledgement that education is the pathway to prosperity that makes me struggle with how someone can oppose this bill. The parents want it. They feel more vested. They feel like their children are safer. Mr. Speaker, you should have seen the parents that came and crossed political and cultural and racial lines to testify on behalf of this bill in the subcommittee. They want it desperately. The students want it. They feel safer. They feel like it's an educational environment that is conducive to their learning. Their test scores are higher. But even if they were not, their graduation rates are higher. As a former prosecutor who cannot remember the last high school graduate that I prosecuted, the simple fact that they are graduated from high school in and of itself is enough of a reason to support this. Educational achievement is higher. Educational attainment is higher. The parents want the same choices for their kids that the President of the United States and, indeed, most of us who are Members of Congress have for ours. Even the United States Department of Education once lauded this program as an example of something that works, until someone or something told them to think otherwise. The residents of the District of Columbia, again crossing racial, political lines overwhelmingly support this program. And the most insidious argument is also the most demonstrably false, that somehow this program takes dollars away from the three-sectored approach that the District of Columbia uses. The public schools will still be funded. Their charter schools will still be funded. This just provides a third alternative, a third choice for parents who desperately want it and need it.

Mr. GOWDY. One of the reasons that public approval for our body is sometimes so historically low is we have a tendency to demagogue those with whom we disagree and we create false dichotomies. This bill is no more about the independence of the District of Columbia than anything else. The District of Columbia does not think twice before accepting Federal dollars for the public school system, the charter school system, or a host of other agendas. Nor does the District of Columbia think twice when it accepts Pell Grant monies that allow an 18-year-old to go to Georgetown, which is a private school, but will not allow a 17-year-old to go to a private high school. Nor is this bill about whether or not someone believes in the public school system. I went to the public schools in South Carolina. My wife teaches in the public schools in South Carolina. And my son will graduate from the public schools in South Carolina. But I will miss his graduation, like many of you have missed things in your lives, because we will be in session. What I will not miss is the opportunity to throw a lifeline to kids who were born through the vicissitudes of life into poverty. We will give them the same choices and chances that we have had.

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Speaker, again I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, for his leadership. It is instructive, it is informative, not to mention ironic, that there were opponents to the D.C. charter school system, just like there is resistance to the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, some of the very same people who rise today in opposition to the Opportunity Scholarship Program, lauding the virtues of the D.C. charter school system, once opposed that very charter school system. The charter school system is a success--I will acknowledge that--just like the Opportunity Scholarship Program is a success. They are both successful because the parents in the District of Columbia want choice. I hate to be redundant. I don't want to beat a dead horse, although it does not hurt the horse to return to the evidence. And the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt by any reasonable, statistical measurement: the parents want this program; the students want this program; the community wants this program; even some elected officials want this program. They just happen to not be ones we have heard from on the other side of the aisle today. Reading scores are up. Educational attainment is up. Graduation rates are up. And it bears repeating again. There is a myriad of maladies that are connected to the dropout rate in this country. And if all we do is to get kids to graduate, it is worth it for this program alone if they just get kids to graduate. Opposition to this bill, Mr. Speaker--and make no mistake about this. Opposition to this bill is political and not factual. I will say that because 18-year-olds in the District of Columbia can take Federal dollars and they can go to Notre Dame and BYU, and they can go to Stanford and they can go to Baylor and they can go to Rice. So why do we oppose Federal dollars helping 17-year-olds? Let that point sink in. So 18-year-olds can take Federal dollars and go to whatever private school they want to, but 17-year-olds cannot take private dollars to go to whatever high school they want to. And I defy anyone to explain to me that distinction. My colleague from the District of Columbia is a passionate, zealous advocate for her constituents, and I commend her for that. I genuinely commend her for her passion and her zeal in representing her constituents. But even her passion is no match for the passion of parents who hope for a better future for their children. Even her passion cannot match the passion of the parents who came to testify before our subcommittee that this is a lifeline. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. And for us to say ``no'' to the Opportunity Scholarship Program because of pure, raw, gutter politics is wrong. I would oppose this amendment, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Opportunity Scholarship Program.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. I rise in support of H. Res. 72, but I also want to commend the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for not only his leadership on this issue but also the judicious way in which he leads our Committee on the Judiciary. The Constitution gives Congress limited but critical functions. The very same Constitution that we all swore an allegiance to when we took the oath, the very same Constitution that we read when we started the 112th Congress, gives important, limited, critical functions to Congress, and one of those functions is to pass laws that are easily understood and reasonably enforced. It is not the function of this body to merely pass broad ideas and leave it up to someone else, an unelected official in the executive branch, to fill in the details. And make no mistake, I do not blame those in the executive branch. I blame the Congress of the United States for abdicating its responsibility. Nature abhors a vacuum, and one look at our code of Federal regulations--and I encourage anyone, anyone who challenges this or doubts it, go to your local library and look at the code of Federal regulations, and you will see that that vacuum created by this body has been more than filled by the executive branch. The labyrinth that has become this Nation's regulatory scheme has exported jobs, imported litigation, all the while eroding the very limited amount of public trust that is left in the institutions of government. We had a witness, Madam Speaker, in Judiciary yesterday, and I asked him a very simple question: When you get a call from a member of the executive branch who works with a regulatory agency, is your first impression that he or she is there to help or to accuse? And this representative of middle America, a businessman from Kentucky, without hesitation said, They are there to accuse. It is an adversarial relationship between the regulators and our business creators. We do not and should not leave it to the FBI to decide what is bank robbery. We do not and should not leave it to the Drug Enforcement Administration to decide which controlled substances under title 21 should be criminalized or not. That is a function of this body. The executive branch does not write laws, at least not yet, in this Republic. Yet we let other regulatory agencies decide the very details that either create or destroy the environment that is conducive to creating jobs. While other Congresses may have delegated and abdicated, we must reclaim the responsibility to govern and legislate, and the accountability that is attendant thereto. H. Res. 72 does exactly that, and I am pleased to rise in its support.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a modern-day forefather who rekindled the foundational beliefs of our country, a leader who earnestly believed in American exceptionalism and the durable power of individual aspirations. At a time when the prevailing mood in our country suggested that our best days were in the past, a time when the challenges seemed larger than our capacity to meet them, President Reagan gave us a reason to hope. Through his words, through his actions, he forced us to take a hard look at ourselves and, in doing so, recapture the ideals that made this Nation great: Hard work, perseverance, personal responsibility, the collective belief that, when working together, greatness is always within our grasp. One by one, he re-inspired the robust American spirit of optimism that sustains us as individuals and unifies us as a country. He was a founding father of the New America, and for that we honor his memory and remain forever grateful.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States has limits. Surely one of those limits must be that Congress cannot compel a private citizen to engage in a private commercial transaction. Surely the Congress of the United States cannot compel a person to purchase life insurance, because generational debt is a bad thing. Surely the Congress of the United States cannot compel someone to purchase vision insurance or dental insurance. The Constitution of the United States places limits on Congress, and it is time that this body honored those limits envisioned by our Forefathers. To ask for self-restraint or respect for the Constitution should not invite challenges to our humanity or accusations of moral acquiescence. I am from the upstate of South Carolina; and every time I go home, I hear about the need for health reform and about the fear that people have with respect to preexisting conditions; but I support a solution that is patient centered and not government centered. I support a solution that is affordable and not generational embezzlement, and I support a solution that is consistent with the Constitution.

Mr. GOWDY

Mr. GOWDY. ``But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.''