Mark Meadows

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, at least we have found something that the gentleman from Michigan and I can agree on. What is wrong is wrong, and that is wrong. When you look at what the gentleman is trying to propose with his legislation, and the fact that he is trying to put the will of Washington, D.C., on States all across this great country, that is wrong. Why do we not allow the status quo to continue? Why? Because it is good for workers. It is good for my State. It is good for South Carolina. It is good for Texas. It is good for all kinds of States. I would even say it is good for his State because he is a right-to-work State. But do you know what? We have talking points that are prepared by people who will benefit from this legislation and nothing more. This does not help the worker. Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, I just find it amazing that somehow we are here debating this issue, and he is suggesting that the numbers prove his point, and they do exactly the opposite. The fact of the matter is that the reason why unions are failing is because the workers are going other places because they get a better benefit. It is what it is because of what we are seeing on the ground not only in North Carolina and Texas but in 27 other States. It is more than half of the country. Yet the gentleman from Michigan over here somehow says: Well, it is the freeloaders. I can tell you, Madam Chair, based on his assumption, there are a few people who pay dues into the Freedom Caucus. Some of the things that we have supported he has actually benefited from. So should he pay dues to the Freedom Caucus, based on his assumption? I think that he would have a problem with that, just like everyone over here has a problem with forcing people to pay union dues when they don't want to join the union, and this is the protection for that. I suggest that we support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, it is interesting to hear this debate because the very State that the gentleman is from is a right-to-work State. I find it just amazing. He comes down here and suggests that somehow Washington, D.C., knows better than his own home State. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chairman, my amendment strikes the language in the PRO Act that would, in effect, repeal right-to-work laws nationwide. Currently, 27 States have adopted right-to-work laws that protect workers in their States from forced unionization. Eight of these States further protect their workers by enshrining right to work in their State constitutions. At their root, right-to-work laws let workers choose whether or not to join a union. Right-to-work laws do not ban union membership. Instead, they let workers, not their employer and not the government, make the choice for them. My colleagues opposite want to make the government the answer to everything. Yet, here we are today, and we should be protecting American values, American freedoms, that freedom of speech and that freedom to associate as a worker chooses. The Supreme Court already recognized these rights in the union context when it ruled that government workers cannot be forced to pay union dues. Taking away this freedom in the private sector would reverse decades of protections that the States have given their workers. I might add that some of the best growing economies are States where we have this ability, and my colleagues opposite want to, indeed, come in and reach into States and tell them how to operate when we have growing economies? If California wants to make sure that everybody has to be in a union, let them move to California. But do you know what? The verdict is already in. They are leaving California for States like Texas and other places where workers truly have the ability to choose for themselves. I believe that we ought to adopt this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4279, introduced by Representative Fred Keller. Certainly, his leadership on this is to be applauded. I also thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence) for her willingness to not only lead on this, but manage the floor for Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I urge the bill's passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3317, introduced by my good friend, Representative French Hill. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, all of us have come together to give a little bit of what we got in big doses, and that was compassion and care from a man who was not only strongest in his convictions, but resolute in those convictions as well. So I rise in support. I appreciate my colleagues opposite for their support of this. I appreciate Congressman Murphy for his leadership as well, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 5037. Walter Jones was not just a colleague; he was a friend. For many of us in this Chamber, we can remember when he sat just off the center aisle there, just a few rows back from the front. He was consistently there and consistently a voice, as my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Price) just said, of those who had fallen in the ultimate fight for freedom and liberty. Many of us have pictures outside of our congressional offices recognizing those who have fallen in their fight for liberty in the armed services, and that is due in no small part to our good friend, Mr. Walter Jones. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), who is carrying on that legacy in his congressional district.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4981 introduced by my good friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams). Certainly, she has gone over all the reasons why support for this measure is not only demanded, but it is certainly deserved. I would just join her in asking my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4794. I appreciate Representative Rose's willingness to acknowledge the great work of Mother Cabrini and so much has been said already about her accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I will just cut to the chase. Let's get this thing done and get it over with and make sure that we show the ``respect'' that we should. 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. 3976, introduced by my friend, Representative Brenda Lawrence. This bill, as has been mentioned, names a post office located in Detroit, Michigan, in honor of the ``Queen of Soul,'' Aretha Franklin. Aretha Franklin was an American singer, songwriter, pianist, and civil rights activist, and so we want to give honor where honor is due. She began her career as a child singing at her church in Detroit. For the next six decades, her distinctive voice captivated listeners and influenced countless other singers. So it is my delight to rise in support of this particular bill. It is out of ``Respect'' for my good friend from Michigan, and so we will ``Say a Little Prayer'' and hope that this goes through.

Mr. MEADOWS

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

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 394, the Presidential Transition Enhancement Act of 2019. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Johnson for taking a serious look at the needed ethics reform. The Senate has developed this legislative package in a bipartisan manner, something that we would be well served in this House to do. At the beginning of Congress, I think the Democrats introduced H.R. 1, which was a grab bag of unrelated Democrat messaging bills. One section of H.R. 1 was really directed at the President of the United States and his administration without really addressing serious ethics reforms. S. 394, on the other hand, is an honest ethics reform package. The bipartisan support in the Senate shows that ethics reform does not need to be a partisan exercise. I would suggest Senator Johnson's bill addresses a number of ambiguities about how agencies work with Presidential transition teams that were identified by the Trump transition team. For example, agencies and the Presidential transition team should come to an agreement about the use and disclosure of transition team records. The bill also establishes a requirement for a transition team's ethics plan. The plan would include consideration of how conflicts of interest would be addressed by members of the transition team and the President-elect. I hope that we can use this for our future benefit as we work together in a bipartisan manner to make sure that ethics are addressed and stop politicizing ethics reforms. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, again, this bill actually takes five different laws that have really not been codified in an appropriate manner, brings them together under one umbrella, and allows us to address this in a meaningful way, a commonsense bill. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues opposite to thank them for their support. I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 375, the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019. I know that I am not alone in addressing the Speaker on the will of the House, but there are very few times that we see a whole lot of good that comes out of the other Chamber in the Capitol. This is one of the rare moments. So as I see this, I would actually encourage support of it. According to the GAO, since 2003, we have had $1.5 trillion--that is trillion with a T--in improper payments. In fiscal year 2018 alone, Federal agencies estimated that there was $151 billion in improper payments. The Speaker probably knows that oftentimes we have had, in Oversight Committee, annual reports on improper payments, and consistently we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that are sent to not only the wrong place, but in terms that are not even accounted for. And after you get hundreds of billions year after year, eventually that adds up to real money. It is time that we address it. This is a commonsense piece of legislation that brings everything together so that we can start, hopefully, addressing the sad state of where we are in addressing improper payments. The American taxpayers demand it, the American taxpayers deserve it, and, ultimately, we have a responsibility to address it. So I rise in support of this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this. I will say that I have had a number of conversations in recent weeks with stakeholders who have offered some suggestions on what we could do, so I look forward to working with the gentleman opposite on how we can address this critical issue. Mr. Speaker, I would urge support and adoption of this measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 3941, the FedRAMP Authorization Act. Cybersecurity and IT modernization are both vital issues that we need to make sure run properly. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) has been very proactive on this front. The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, or FedRAMP, as it is commonly referred to, would allow Federal programs to focus on cybersecurity for cloud services, and it provides a process for agencies to follow when procuring cloud systems to ensure that those systems meet strict cybersecurity controls. The gentlewoman, the chairman of the full committee, has certainly talked on a number of issues as it relates to this bill, but since there is no opposition that I am aware of, I will just submit my remarks for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3941, the FedRAMP Authorization Act. Cyber security and IT modernization are both vital issues to ensure this government runs efficiently and effectively. The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, or FedRAMP, is the main federal program focused on cyber security for cloud services. It provides a process for agencies to follow when procuring cloud systems to ensure the systems meet strict cyber security controls. Recent federal policies make the focus on securing cloud services especially important. With the Cloud First initiative in 2011 and the Cloud Smart initiative from last year, the government has focused on implementation of cloud technologies. The federal government has been plagued by reoccurring problems in information technology, such as low asset utilization, duplicative systems, and fragmented resources. Shifting to the cloud provides for improved asset utilization, increased innovation, and a more responsive tech environment. These improved efficiencies lead to a significant cost savings. In fiscal year 2018, the government spent roughly six and a half billion dollars on cloud computing, with eighty four percent coming from FedRAMP authorized providers. Efficiencies from FedRAMP saved agencies over two hundred fifty million dollars. Codifying the program is an important step to encouraging agencies to take advantage of this program and all the benefits it offers. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I know that everybody is tuned in in their offices, paying attention to this unbelievable debate, and so for all of you that are tuned in on C-SPAN, and as we debate this, I think it is important that I share a couple of sentences from the U.S. Postal Service. So it is not from my colleagues opposite. It is not from my point of view; but this is what they have to say about this bill: ``It would neither reduce the underlying RHB liability nor improve our cash flow or our long-term financial position. It would not impact the liquidity crisis that we have.'' These are not my words, Mr. Speaker. These are the words of those that are closest to the financial responsibility, the Postal Service themselves. So if the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I will just recommend to my colleagues a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do need to correct a few things that the gentleman from Oregon just addressed. This is not--support or being against this bill is not an attack on the Postal Service. I mean, there is no one who has invested more time--I can promise you, when I came to Congress, fixing the Postal Service was not on my bucket list. And as we have invested time, and I see my good friend, Mr. Lynch, my good friend, Mr. Connolly, let me just tell you, we have invested days, if not weeks and months, to try to address this. But the gentleman from Oregon is just not correct. This particular bill, while it may be part of a solution, gives them no flexibility. It gives them no additional cash flow. They are still going to go out of business if we do not come together and get something worked out for all of us to make sure that, not only do we have a postal system that works, but one that is not a mere shadow of its former self. I will say this: I want to make sure that my postal unions and all of those that are watching very intently, you have made an impact on this Member from North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, they have let me know exactly how important this is. And yet, at the same time, I am afraid I cannot support this bill because it does not do what we need it to do, and that is, address the problem today. This just kicks the can down the road. And unfortunately, it doesn't even kick it down the road long enough to allow the postal workers to depend on the very system that employs them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.