Mark Meadows

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate all the points that my friends opposite are making. In fact, I have made some of the very same points when we talk about reform bills. The problem is, all the wonderful things that they are talking about in this bill do not exist. They are not making the payments. They haven't made a payment since 2010. So how does giving relief from a payment you are not making suddenly make the Postal Service viable? It doesn't. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), who will give you an opposing view from our side.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would also join him. We have got a number of great unions that I have had the privilege of getting to know over this time as we looked at comprehensive reform, and his acknowledging them and his willingness to look at something that actually solves the problem is to be applauded. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and I want to highlight his work on this particular issue, and I agree with him that this, ultimately, will be part of what has to be dovetailed into anything we do to fix the Postal Service. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) in the spirit of letting my colleagues express their full-throated support of this bill.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I love the passion. The only problem is it is misplaced. I can tell you that, if this bill would truly solve the business model that the Postal Service has, I would rise and support it. If this is all we are going to do, hallelujah. Let's do it and get it done. But the gentleman is wrong. This does not solve the problem. You can give them a pass on $5 billion a year, and they are still losing money. That is the whole issue. That is the crux of the issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and rise in opposition to the bill. No one has invested more time than perhaps Mr. Connolly or myself on postal reform. But I think it was Winston Churchill who said that no matter how beautiful the strategy, we must occasionally look at the results. And the results of this bill will do nothing to stop the post office from hemorrhaging money. As we look at this prefunding--and I would agree with the gentlewoman--part of our solution, part of the bipartisan solution in the previous Congress, was to look at this prefunding issue and to try to address it. But to do it as a standalone bill, Mr. Speaker, is certainly not what the doctor ordered. Because even with this, the Postal Service continues to lose money each and every day. I would say that if this was the bomb that solved their problem, it would have already been solved because they haven't been making the payments. What the American people need to understand is, they are wanting relief from a payment that they are not making, and it is going to make zero difference in terms of the viability of the Postal Service. Now, we can all agree that there need to be major reforms, but this particular bill, and the way that it is being put forth, would actually hurt the potential progress we have in addressing real reforms. With that, I sadly rise in opposition to this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman's courtesy. I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. I appreciate the gentlewoman's flexibility, but if you would let me reclaim my time and yield to the gentleman, who made it in by the hair on his chinny chin chin.

Mr. MEADOWS. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have one other speaker who is running in the halls right now, but I may let him speak upon a different bill. Let me just mention Mr. Walberg's leadership on this, a real shout- out to him and his leadership on trying to make sure congressional intent was indeed addressed. I thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3830, the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act. The Federal Government is a complex and diverse organization. As Members of Congress, we are responsible for ensuring the Federal Government is efficient and effective. However, we lack the tools to understand how the taxpayer dollars are spent. Oftentimes, we lack a detailed list of the programs that are there. This bipartisan bill will increase transparency and make it easier to see how the Federal Government uses its tax dollars. May I edit that last statement just a bit? It is not the government's tax dollars. It is the hardworking American people's tax dollars. So this is a critically important additional tool. In fiscal year 2019, the Federal Government spent nearly $4.4 trillion. Taxpayers should know where their hard-earned money is going. To follow the money, we need to know what the government is doing, so a comprehensive inventory of Federal programs will help us do that. In 2010, Congress required the executive branch to develop a comprehensive Federal program inventory. The program inventory Congress envisioned would have given the public insight into the government's organizational structure and provided a comparable list of all Federal programs. Comparability is key. We need to see how these programs match up. To give you one example, there were 678 duplicative programs in the Federal Government that dealt just with sustainable energy. You can argue the merits of priority or the lack thereof, but, certainly, over 600 programs to deal with one particular issue across the government is something that cannot be efficient. However, the Government Accountability Office found that the program inventory built for the previous administration in 2013 failed to meet the intent of the law or needs of Congress. Implementing guidance allowed far too much flexibility for agencies to define programs. Each agency used its own definition, which prevented programs to be compared to one another. So the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act updates the law to require a more consistent definition of Federal programs across all agencies. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good bill that goes with the intent of Congress as laid out, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would rise in support of this legislation. I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for her kind words. Ms. Tlaib has been leading on this. The gentlewoman is right. Chairman Cummings had an infectious way of bringing people together, and I rise in support of this legislation as a tribute to his leadership and to her leadership. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5214, the Representative Payee Fraud Prevention Act. Federal employees often dedicate decades of their lives to public service. When they retire, those Federal employees receive their hard-earned retirement benefits. Currently, the Federal Government issues payments to more than 2 million retirees and more than half a million survivor annuitants each year. Annuitants receive an average of $2,500 a month. If a Federal annuitant becomes incapacitated in some way, a representative payee may be appointed. A representative payee is a person who receives and manages benefits on behalf of another person who is not fully capable of managing their own benefits. Certainly, things like mental illness, disability, or long-term illness are just a few examples of situations where a payee may step in and provide that counsel. Obviously, as we look at this, a representative payee has a duty to use financial benefits to assist with the care and well-being of the intended beneficiary. Surprisingly, though, it is not a crime for a representative payee to commit financial fraud against an incapacitated Federal retiree. However, under the Social Security Act, it is a crime to do so. I have always assumed that this type of financial abuse of retired Federal employees was also a crime. But right now, under Federal law, it is not. As the chairwoman from New York mentioned, this is a commonsense piece of legislation. I would like to thank my colleague, Ms. Tlaib, for her leadership on this. This bill will make it a crime to embezzle Federal retirement benefits as a representative payee. If convicted, the representative payee could be subject to criminal fines and up to 5 years in prison. Obviously, this is a protection for our Federal workforce. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this particular piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I never thought that I would hear on this House floor an apology to the Iranian people for an action that we took that was justified, taking out a terrorist. I cannot believe it. And, yet, we just heard that on this House floor. We have a gentleman who gave his legs in service to this country and, yet, we are apologizing to the Iranians with a nonbinding resolution that is nothing more than a press release, Madam Speaker. It has no effect. It doesn't do anything. In fact, the Supreme Court says that. They know that. All they are doing is trying to get a press release to keep them from having a primary opponent. This is a sad, sad day. And, yet, here we are, having another speech to try to take on the President of the United States for actually taking out a terrorist. I would ask my colleagues opposite: How many Americans does a terrorist have to kill before they join with us? Is 600 not enough? Does it have to be 1,000, 10,000, a million? At some point we have to stand up and let the long arm of justice go in and take out these terrorists. I am here to tell you today that this nonbinding resolution, indeed, they want to talk about their constitutional requirement, well, check with the Supreme Court. In 1983, they ruled that this has no effect. At least our Senators opposite, they know that. It has to be a joint resolution. And, yet, what is this vehicle normally designed for? For Soap Box Derbies. Well, at least that accomplishes something. All this does is emboldens our enemies to suggest that the American people are divided. But I am here to tell you that we are not divided. We are a safer country because of the actions of this President, the decisive actions of this President and our military. More important than that, this War Powers Act that got passed, it was a message that came out of a difficult time. But I want the message to be clear today. We are standing behind our military men and women. We have their back, and we will not yield.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this important piece of legislation and I rise in support of it. I can tell you, there are a number of comments that are often made about Texas. We see that we have got Mr. McCaul; we have got Mr. Cuellar; we have got others behind me from Texas, and one of those sayings is that everything is bigger in Texas. But the more appropriate line here is, don't mess with Texas. And this legislation is all about making sure that our national security is put first and foremost at the highest priority to make sure that we are competing internationally, right now. Right now, our Chinese counterparts at Huawei are deploying this kind of technology in countries that we would normally associate as our allies. So Mr. McCaul is right in not only leading on this piece of legislation, but to stress the importance of competing now. Now, in part of my district we are looking for 1G, not 5G. We are just hoping for some kind of cellular service. But I can tell you, the country who builds it first will win on the national security level. They will win because consumers are looking for that next generation of technology as we become more dependent and reliant on our cell phones. Additionally, we have reports that would suggest that some of the people working for Huawei right now actually work for the Chinese Government as well; that it is not an independent company. In fact, not only are they working for the Chinese Government, but they are also working in cyber for the Chinese Government. And we somehow think that this is going to work out well for the United States of America? It is time that we act. It is time that we come together. I want to applaud the gentlewoman opposite for her willingness to work, for Chairman Engel, and Mr. Cuellar, to come together in a bipartisan manner. We need to act. Time is slipping away. And if we don't act, there will be great repercussions, not only for consumers, but for our national security interest. I proudly urge support of this bill, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, today, as we sit here debating impeachment, all they want to talk about is the Constitution and Alexander Hamilton. During the last 30 days I have heard more about Hamilton from my Democrat colleagues, and until then the closest they ever came to Hamilton was a $10 bill. All of a sudden, what we have are these strict constitutionalists on the other side of the aisle. Madam Speaker, this has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has nothing to do with anything but raw politics. There is only one person on the other side of the aisle who got seven Pinocchios for not telling the truth. No one on this side of the aisle got that during this impeachment process, Madam Speaker. The American people need to understand two key facts: The Democrats in control set their own rules of evidence. They said, what we need to do for impeachment is to have compelling evidence and bipartisan support. They don't have either of those two things. They failed the rules that they made up themselves. We have got President Zelensky of Ukraine saying that there was no pressure. We have got the number two guy in Ukraine saying that there was no pressure. We have got the number three guy in Ukraine saying that there was no pressure. These are the supposed victims of this alleged crime, and yet here we are supposedly having this compelling evidence and facts when the best witness they have--the very best witness they had--had to change his testimony twice. They mentioned him 611 times, and ultimately, he said: I presume that that is what the President meant. Madam Speaker, I can tell you that there are not facts here to support it. But what is more important than that, Madam Speaker, is that here we are today and we have bipartisan opposition to impeachment, not bipartisan support. My colleagues opposite want the American people to think that this is a sad and somber day. This is a sad day. It is a sad day for this institution because we have lowered the bar to impeach a President who continues to give us an economy that not only is growing, but growing at levels that we have never seen in the history of our country. When we look at unemployment at a level that is truly remarkable, they want to impeach. But it is another sad day because now what they are doing is they are telling the American people that 233 Democrats deserve to decide who the President of the United States should be and disenfranchise 63 million voters. When all is said and done, when the history of this impeachment is written, it will be said that my Washington Democrat friends couldn't bring themselves to work with Donald Trump, so they consoled themselves instead by silencing the will of those who did: the American people.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2548, the Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects Act. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher) for her fine work on this. And I would like to give her a compliment. It is always interesting to see how we can name these bills in the most creative ways to actually let them resonate with the voters back home. So my congratulations on calling this the HELP Act, and congratulations to Mrs. Fletcher's staff as well, as they always, as you know, Mr. Speaker, get very creative on how we can figure out acronyms to make these bills have more pizzazz. So this bill is a commonsense approach. It is certainly critical to communities that have been impacted by disasters, where they can start recovery in a much more efficient, smarter, and faster way. Buyouts and relocation projects, in particular, are critical tools for getting people and property out of harm's way, yet these projects take time to plan and carry out. This bill would allow communities to be eligible for mitigation assistance for those projects commenced prior to their request for assistance. The bill ensures such projects must comply with all other eligibility requirements. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the gentlewoman opposite, perhaps we can even look at going a little bit further. She made mention of the current NEPA standards and all of those that apply. As we know, in the gentlewoman's home State of Texas, in my home State of North Carolina, some of those Federal regulations actually are part of the impediment of getting some of this disaster relief to the people that are most affected. I know that we have billions of dollars--that is billions with a B-- waiting to be deployed in my State of North Carolina, as in the gentlewoman's State of Texas, so it is critically important that we come together in a bipartisan fashion. It doesn't help us to appropriate billions of dollars here on this floor if it never reaches the ultimate destination, which is our constituents who have been tragically, and many times horrifically, put out of their homes and their communities. This will allow communities to select early on the best mitigation approach and begin these projects earlier to ensure a faster recovery. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation. If the gentlewoman is prepared to close without any further speakers, I would ask her to just give me a nod one way or another. Mr. Speaker, I am going to go ahead and close right here and just say, I encourage my colleagues to go ahead and vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Cathy Coomer, who will retire on December 31, 2019 after thirty years of dedicated service with the Buncombe County Government. Ms. Coomer's dedication to serving North Carolina began on January 12, 1990. As Safety Officer, Ms. Coomer is responsible for the safety and well-being of a workforce of 1,500 employees. She has been an integral part of the Buncombe County Emergency Services Operation and earned her certificate as a North Carolina Executive Level Emergency Manager. Throughout her career, Ms. Coomer has held leadership positions on numerous state and local committees. She served as President for the Western North Carolina Safety and Health School and the Western North Carolina Safety Council. She served as President for the North Carolina Association of Local Government Employee Safety Officials. She was also on the Conference Program Committee with the North Carolina Emergency Management Association. Ms. Coomer's leadership and dedication to the people in North Carolina was on clear display during her efforts in response to numerous emergency and disaster situations, including the Blizzard of 1993, Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Irene, and several other various non-declared events. It is my great pleasure to celebrate Ms. Cathy Coomer before the United States House of Representatives and thank her for diligent service to her community, the great State of North Carolina, and this country.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Jerry VeHaun, who will retire after forty-seven years of dedicated service with Buncombe County Emergency Services. Mr. VeHaun's dedication to serving those in crisis has been evident throughout his life. He served as the Director of Emergency Services where he saw the Buncombe County Emergency Medical Services grow from only employing first aid trained personnel to an advanced life support service employing paramedics and advanced EMTs. Throughout his career he has led various emergency management and response organizations. He served as President of the North Carolina Emergency Management Association and was awarded the General Edward Foster Griffin Award twice. He also served as President and Certification Commission Chairman of the International Association of Emergency Managers, where he was a recipient of the Clayton R. Christopher Award. He served as President of the Western North Carolina Safety Council. He served as Chairman for the North Carolina Domestic Preparedness Region 9 and was a member of the North Carolina State Emergency Response Commission. Mr. VeHaun also served on the Boards of the Asheville/Mountain Area Chapter of the American Red Cross; Metropolitan Sewerage District; Aston Park Healthcare Center; MANNA Food Bank; and the Buncombe County Rescue Squad, where he served as Chairman. Mr. VeHaun's heart of service is displayed by his dedication to the people of North Carolina, and also to the nation in times of tragedy. As a member of a federal Disaster Mortuary Operations Team, he was deployed to New York following the September 11th attacks and to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. It is my great pleasure to celebrate Mr. Jerry VeHaun before the United States House of Representatives and thank him for his diligent service to his community, the great State of North Carolina, and this country.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to address the gentleman's question. There are a number of different areas where we actually collect money. The LWCF is one of those. $900 million a year comes from oil producers. It is supposed to be spent on something, but it goes back to the Treasury. So if we went into a colloquy back and forth, I will be glad to do that with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). That being said, Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate. The ranking member is exactly right. This is the only place you can exceed an unlimited budget by $10 billion. We have agreed to something, and all of a sudden what happens is now they start to push back. They start to push back because you know what? This priority wasn't included in the budget caps deal. It is amazing that my colleague opposite now is, all of a sudden, becoming a fiscal conservative. So I will give him an honorary invitation to join the Freedom Caucus. It is amazing how fiscally conservative some of the Members opposite get when it comes to some special project that they want to overlook. Mr. Speaker, I would just say, the truth here today is that not only do we need to be fiscally responsible for the American taxpayer, but we need to start showing some fiscal restraints here in this body. Eventually, you run out of other people's money, and I think that day is now.

Mr. MEADOWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Oregon is suggesting that we do not pay for that fee in the ultimate gas tax that we--you know, he is the chairman of the Transportation Committee. As anybody knows, he would know that it is embedded in part of that.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. I have often wondered, on the pharmaceutical commercials that you see on TV, who is the individual who can speak as fast as the narrator and puts in the disclaimers. I have now found the gentleman from Oregon to be that individual, so it is a good day for me. I thank the gentleman for his support. Certainly, I rise in support of H.R. 1306, the Federal Disaster Assistance Coordination Act. As the chairman was noting, this is a bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation that would amend the Disaster Recovery Reform Act and establish a process to identify ways to streamline it and consolidate the collection of certain disaster information. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I didn't mention the work of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), in terms of really trying to make sure that, when we allocate dollars, they get to those people who are suffering most. The last thing we need is for them to be caught up in a bureaucracy that was not of their own making. Following a disaster, many times, damage assessment needs are to be done quickly. In North Carolina, even most recently, some of those get into a lot of finger-pointing back and forth, Mr. Speaker. Just last week, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure received testimony from State and local emergency managers on how that cumbersome process is and what it is now. So, while FEMA is certainly the lead Federal agency on disasters, there is often an alphabet soup of Federal agencies that have to get involved in the disaster response, and it is the local Federal coordinators that actually have to work in this recovery. So it is critical that we look throughout all of our agencies to minimize the overlap, certainly as it relates to assessments, and consider the use of newer technologies and how to streamline the process. Specifically, this bill will establish a Federal working group, led by FEMA, that would work with the Council of the Inspectors General on integrity and efficiency to determine how the damage assessment process can be streamlined and whether new technologies can be used to speed up the process. Mr. Speaker, this is just a good-government bill that will improve disaster recovery. As the gentleman knows, being from the great State of Texas, as well as I do, when people are hurting from disasters, what they want are fast, efficient recovery efforts. Hopefully, this bipartisan effort will do that. I encourage support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana for his comments. When you think of disaster recovery and think of a champion who has been wanting to address this, not just on this bill, but each and every bill that he looks at, there is no greater advocate that the American people have than the gentleman from Louisiana. In closing, I want to thank the chairman. Many times we can have different opinions on different particular pieces of legislation, but the gentleman has always been thoughtful, and certainly, under his leadership, in his chairmanship, he has worked in a bipartisan manner to advance legislation. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to allow this bill to come to the floor, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.