Mark Meadows

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 337, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. We stand here today 3 weeks shy of the FOIA's 50th anniversary to strengthen the law that established the public's right to know. Enacted in 1966, FOIA was the product of more than a decade of work on government secrecy by a predecessor committee to the current Oversight and Government Reform Committee. At the time, FOIA was only the third public information law in the world. It was by far the most far-reaching. FOIA established a right to information, which is commonly known as the public's right to know. S. 337 reaffirms the public's right to know and puts in place several reforms to stop agencies from slowly eroding the effectiveness of using FOIA to exercise that right. This bill is a bipartisan effort to improve the public's access to information and transparency in the Federal Government. I would like to thank Senators Cornyn, Grassley, and Leahy for their hard work that they put into writing and passing this bill. I would also like to thank Representative Darrell Issa and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings for their work on the House bill, H.R. 653, which passed in January. Through all of our combined efforts, I believe that this is the best bill we can send to the President's desk. I have no doubt that the reforms contained in this bill will significantly improve the American public's ability to exercise their right to access information. The most important reform is the presumption of openness. Now, while some--but far from all--Federal agencies have made an effort to comply with the letter of the law, very few have complied with the spirit of the law. The presumption of openness puts that spirit into the letter of the law. Before claiming an exemption, agencies must first determine whether they could reasonably foresee an actual harm. FOIA includes exemptions because publicly releasing information can sometimes cause more harm than good. But from the beginning, agencies have taken advantage of these exemptions to withhold any information that might technically fit. Under the presumption of openness, agencies may no longer withhold information that is embarrassing or could possibly paint the agency in a negative light simply because an exemption may technically apply. This will go a long way toward getting rid of the withhold-it-because-you-want-to exemption. S. 337 establishes reforms that will bring attention, leadership, and commitment to improvement to all Federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security is a great example of how attention, leadership, and a commitment to improvement can be more valuable, at times, than additional dollars. From 2009 to 2015, requests sent to DHS nearly tripled. DHS requests accounted for about 40 percent of all the requests governmentwide. As the requests increased, so did the backlog. And in 2014, that backlog at DHS exceeded more than 100,000 requests. However, the agency made a commitment to improve its efficiency and reduce its backlog. In 2015, that backlog was down by two-thirds, to about 35,000. Costs overall went up, but that is expected when requests nearly triple in just 6 years. What is not expected is that the cost per request was cut by 58 percent. In 2009, DHS averaged $255 per request processed, and in 2015, the costs had dropped to $148 per request processed. S. 337 establishes reforms that will ensure all agencies have the attention and the leadership necessary to improve the FOIA process. The bill establishes a Chief FOIA Officers Council, which is directed to develop initiatives to increase transparency and compliance with FOIA and make recommendations for increased efficiencies and share best practices. The bill establishes greater independence of the Office of Government Information Services, which will allow OGIS to give unbiased, unfiltered testimony and recommendations. S. 337 creates an incentive for agencies to comply with the law by preventing agencies from collecting fees for any request for up to 5,000 pages if that request is not completed within the statutory time limits. Out-of-date regulations have been repeatedly used as an excuse to withhold information, delay requests, or otherwise to obstruct the process. S. 337 gets rid of this excuse by requiring agencies to update their regulations so that they are operating under the current law. S. 337 also simplifies the process of submitting requests by establishing an online central portal that will allow a member of the public to submit a request to an agency at a single Web site rather than forcing the public to navigate each agency's different process and Web site. These reforms and others packaged in the FOIA Improvement Act will go a long way to improving transparency and bringing agency leadership attention to improving the public's ability to exercise their right to know. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this giant step forward to improve FOIA and the public's access to information. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for her support on this bill. I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who has spent a considerable amount of time not only on the House version, but really helping shape the debate on making sure that the public interests of America is protected.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 337) to improve the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his insightful, well-thought-out words on behalf of this bill. Indeed, Mr. Issa and Mr. Cummings have been a moving force and, really, one of the primary forces as to why we are here today; so I just want to acknowledge that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I acknowledge the, really, unbelievable work of the staff. Many times, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, we will get up and work very hard, but it is the countless hours on behalf of our staff that really allows us to move legislation forward; so I wouldn't want this day to go by without acknowledging their support and work. Also, I acknowledge the leadership of Chairman Chaffetz in his being able to not only navigate this bill before and, hopefully, to the President's desk for signing, but certainly in his leadership on transparency and in making sure that the government of the people is accountable to the people. I urge the adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Dot Case of Henderson County, North Carolina. On behalf of the people of Western North Carolina, I would like to thank Ms. Case for her dedication to the students of Henderson County, and congratulate her on her retirement after 47 years working towards the betterment of Henderson County Public Schools. After finishing high school, Ms. Case left Henderson County to complete a degree in History at Appalachian State University, where she graduated in 1969. Later that year, she returned to Edneyville to begin the first of her many years as an educator and role model for so many. In her first job, Ms. Case taught 7th grade physical education and English at Edneyville High School, which later moved to a new campus to become North Henderson High. She soon began to teach 9th grade History, and took on the responsibility of imparting to students an understanding of our past and an appreciation for the history our state, nation, and world. Outside of the classroom, Ms. Case coached basketball, cheerleading, and track and has been a reliable presence at North Henderson's sports events for decades. Among Ms. Case's many experiences and accolades, she has sponsored Student Council programs since 1970 at Edneyville and then at North Henderson, taught AP classes since 1994, received a Social Studies Economic Teacher Award for her work, was named a Presidential Scholars Teacher in 1983, has been teacher of the year twice, and was the Regional teacher of the year in 2010. Over her 47 years teaching, Ms. Case has shown an exceptional interest in the success of her students. By pushing them to achieve what they might not have thought possible, Dot Case has made an unparalleled impression on generations of Henderson County students and on the community at large. More than an expert educator, Ms. Case has devoted herself to improving the lives of her students in areas beyond the classroom, and has continued to embolden and assist her graduates for years after they leave North Henderson. Ms. Dot Case is an invaluable and unforgettable member of her community. She has earned the admiration of many students for the devotion she has given them all, and deserves the respect and gratitude of Western North Carolina. I am proud to honor Ms. Dot Case for her long service to Henderson County and sincerely express the gratitude and best wishes of the people of North Carolina as she enters retirement.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Chaffetz, for his strong statement in support of H.R. 5233, the Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of 2016. As we begin debate on this important bill, I would like to first take the opportunity to reiterate that I firmly believe that the Local Budget Autonomy Act is, indeed, unlawful and null and void. The Home Rule Act clearly provides that the District's budget shall pass through the Federal appropriations process, preserving Congress' role in the passage of that budget. However, because of the precedent that allowing the District to usurp the congressional authority may set, and the potential negative consequences that the District government employees may face for enforcing the Local Budget Autonomy Act, I have introduced H.R. 5233. I would further say that my good friend, the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, indeed is a friend, and I appreciate her passionate way that she always represents her constituency. While we disagree on the debate and the merits of that debate, I can't help but acknowledge my friendship with her and, truly, her passion for the people who she serves. H.R. 5233 will repeal the Local Budget Autonomy Act and reinforce Congress' intended role in the budgetary process. As many of you know, Congress was granted that exclusive legislative authority over the District in Article 1, section 8, clause 17. This exclusive authority was explained further in the Federalist 43 as being a crucial component in keeping the Federal Government free from potential influence by any State housing the government's seat. There was a distinct worry that placing the seat of the Federal Government in a territory where Congress was not the sole sovereign would, indeed, impact its integrity. Therefore, the Founding Fathers saw fit to authorize Congress to create the District and act as the sole legislative authority for the District. As seen in Federalist 43, the Founding Fathers believed that Congress would delegate some of those exclusive authorities to the District, specifically the power to deal with solely local matters. In 1973, Congress made a decision to enact such legislation when they passed the Home Rule Act. In that act, Congress provided the District with the authority to have the jurisdiction over legislative matters on a limited basis. But--and this is a critically important point--Congress reserved for itself, and prohibited the District from altering, the role of Congress in the budgetary process. There can be little doubt that Congress intended to reserve that power for itself. The language of the Home Rule Act itself is clear. Both the former and the current attorney general for the District, as well as the former Mayor, believe the Local Budget Autonomy Act to be unlawful and contrary to the Home Rule Act. Mr. Irvin Nathan, the former attorney general, testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that numerous sections of the Home Rule Act prohibit the District's action. Mr. Nathan, who supports the policy, as my good friend acknowledged, who actually supports the policy of budget autonomy, even stated that he believed the Federal District Court's opinion invalidating the Local Budget Autonomy Act was, indeed, a correct opinion. Beyond the clear language, the legislative history makes it clear, Mr. Speaker, that Congress had no intent to delegate to the District the authority for the budgetary process. In fact, Mr. Jacques DePuy, who participated in the drafting of the Home Rule Act itself, made it clear in testimony before Congress that, indeed, Congress did not intend to delegate the appropriations powers to the District. The legislative record of the Home Rule Act supports Mr. DePuy. One such piece of the record is, indeed, the Diggs letter, which the chairman referenced earlier, that was issued by Chairman Charles Diggs. The letter describes how it was clarifying the intent of Congress by making several changes, including reserving Congress' role in the budgetary process. The Diggs letter highlighted a pivotal aspect of the congressional intent in the Home Rule Act. It represents a compromise in response to the Senate's Home Rule Act, which actually included a form of budget autonomy. The compromise does not indicate that Congress intended to grant the District budget autonomy. To the contrary, what the Diggs compromise represents is that there could be no Home Rule Act, absent an express reservation of the role of Congress in the District's budget process. I believe there can be no stronger statement that Congress intended to reserve its appropriation role than the fact that the Home Rule Act would have failed, absent that reservation. Importantly, both of these men, Mr. Irvin and Mr. DePuy, who support budget autonomy further believe that the District's action is illegal and, therefore, null and void. I want to be clear on this. We are not here today to make a power grab against the District, as some would suggest. We are here, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the rule of law. At the committee's hearing, even the chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia was forced to acknowledge that it was clear that the majority of the Members of Congress who passed the Home Rule Act intended to reserve the complete appropriations for Congress. Again, another individual who supports budget autonomy recognizes the intent of Congress. So, in moving ahead with the Local Budget Autonomy Act, the District government is usurping congressional authority, and inaction would undermine not only this institution, but all organs of government across this Nation. To suggest that any city council's action, whether it be here in the District or in any other city in the country, could unilaterally overturn the intent of Congress would set a bad precedent. Regardless of the precedent, however, such action by local government is a blatant violation of the Supremacy Clause and, therefore, unconstitutional. Moreover, as a result of the unlawful way in which the budget autonomy is purported to have been achieved, District government employees are now at risk of the Antideficiency Act and the sanctions therein. Under the Antideficiency Act, absent a congressional appropriation, the District may not expend or obligate funds. Doing so will result in potential criminal or administrative penalties for not only the District's elected officials, but the line level employees charged with purchasing items for the District. The GAO testified that they maintain that the Local Budget Autonomy Act violates the Home Rule Act and the Antideficiency Act, despite the superior court's decision. H.R. 5233 would repeal the Local Budget Autonomy Act and prevent the District government employees from having to worry that the purchases they make on behalf of the District may indeed violate the law. H.R. 5233 will also augment the already clear prohibitions on the District in altering the role of Congress in the budget process, ensuring that Congress' intent and constitutional authority, Mr. Speaker, remains in place.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite--and I say that in the most authentic and complete terms because, indeed, the gentleman is my friend--raises a point of debate about the Constitution and the fact that explicitly in the Constitution, our Founding Fathers reserved this particular authority in Article I, section 8, clause 17, which shows the wisdom of our Founding Fathers to anticipate what, indeed, we are debating here today. For many of the other arguments that my good friend has made in terms of what we need to change, there is the appropriate place for those changes to be made, and that is exactly what this debate has been about. It is about the rule of law; it is about the Constitution; and it is about this institution being the proper place to make those determinations on behalf of the will of We the People. Now, the motion to recommit talks about Zika funding. And I might remind the gentleman that, indeed, in this very body within the last few days, we have already passed funding to address the Zika virus' potential healthcare concern; and, indeed, this is the correct body for us to do that. It is not the District of Columbia or any other municipality across the country. It is, indeed, this body, the role for this particular body that has been reserved constitutionally; and it has been that way since the very founding of this great country we all call home. I would also add that, as we start to look at this, the debate has been over local control. And when we start to see the debate that continues to play out, this particular issue was reserved in the Constitution, and it was solely that of Congress to have all legislative power over the District. Now, is that somehow inconsistent with the fact that we want to make sure that all control is local? It is not. Because as we look at that, we must, indeed, make sure that we stand up. And I would ask all of my colleagues to look at the very foundation of who we are as an institution, as Members of Congress. To allow the Budget Autonomy Act to stand in place would not only usurp the authority--the congressional authority--that has been given to us in our Constitution but, indeed, it would undermine it for future Congresses to come. So it is with great humility, but also with great passion, that I would urge my colleagues to defeat the motion to recommit, knowing that we have already addressed the particular funding requirement that the gentleman from Virginia brings up--defeat the motion to recommit, and support the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The night is getting long, and the committee has done some great work on the underlying bill. This amendment is a commonsense amendment, one meant to provide transparency as it relates to the Army Corps of Engineers and the awarding of contracts. When they actually award a technically acceptable lowest bid, the rationale and the other transparency documents would actually be reported that no funds could be extended except for those express purposes. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his eloquent words. As we look at this particular bill, there is a lot that has been said about what home rule is and what it is not. There is a lot that has been said about what the law is and what it is not, and yet it is undeniable that the Constitution actually reserved for this esteemed body the power to legislate over all affairs within the District, going back to Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. And yet in 1973, Mr. Speaker, this body took on a law, debated it in both the House and the Senate, to actually take some of those authorities granted by the Constitution and allow the District to actually put forth laws with regard to local issues. Now, specifically reserved in that 1973 law was the whole issue of the budget and appropriations. As we started to look at this particular function--my good friend, the Delegate from the District, obviously has talked very seriously about the law. Well, the law was very clear in 1973 on what we passed. Actually, Charles Diggs--Chairman Diggs--had what they called the Diggs Compromise that specifically was spelled out in a dear colleague letter on the fact that budgetary control would remain with this body and, indeed, with the appropriators. Yet somehow we see a decision by a superior court as having the effect of law? Well, we know from our civics class that it is this body that is putting forth Federal law. It cannot be a local jurisdiction that comes in and usurps the power of the Federal law with its local mandates. So, Mr. Speaker, while my good friend and I will disagree perhaps on a number of issues, what we should agree on is the fact that the Constitution reserved this right for Congress. The Constitution and, indeed, those relegated and delegated powers in 1973 were specific in keeping the appropriations and budgetary process within this body. To ignore that would be, honestly, ignoring the debate that happened then, debate that happens now, and sworn testimony in hearings that, indeed, those who crafted this particular law are all in agreement that this was the intent of Congress. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to not only support this, but reaffirm the role that Congress has and make sure that we keep it within this body.

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, indeed, the delegate opposite is my friend. She serves her constituency well. Her impassioned plea on behalf of her constituents is not only recognized this day, but each and every day in this body. This particular debate is not over what is believed to be right or wrong. It is over the rule of law. Indeed, the argument was made by the gentleman from Georgia yesterday that this is a matter of law, not on the merits of what is right or what is wrong from a standpoint of budget autonomy. But I would also refer, Mr. Speaker, to the argument that would suggest that everything is great here in Washington, D.C., in terms of the budget. If that indeed is the case that is being argued here today, you can't have it both ways, because the status quo today has been one that truly has the authority rested and vested here in this esteemed body. So to suggest that things are less than perfect, I am not here to do that. But if indeed everything is turning up roses today, it is the status quo that has indeed preserved that. So I would suggest that, as we start to look at this, it is a fundamental question: Are we going to uphold the rule of law? The rule of law here is very clear. In fact, the debates back in 1973 talked about that all we wanted was some of the local control over our local government. And as that debate went on, there was indeed, as my good friend mentioned, in the Senate the desire to give budget autonomy to the district. Yet, as we know from our civics class, it takes both the Senate and the House and the President to sign it into law. I would say that we need to continue to support the rule of law.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. John Thuss of Caldwell County, North Carolina. On behalf of the people of Western North Carolina, I would like to thank Dr. Thuss for his dedication to the residents of Caldwell County and congratulate him on his retirement after so many years of service. Over his 16 years of service as a Caldwell County Commissioner, Dr. Thuss presided over several critical projects vital to the economic, educational, and conservation interests of the people of Caldwell County. He was instrumental in the designation and preservation of Wilson Creek as a Wild and Scenic River and has demonstrated his commitment to expanding educational opportunities through his work establishing the Caldwell Early College High School and Caldwell Career Center Middle College. Dr. Thuss' concern for public education is further evidenced by his support for West Caldwell High School athletics and Communities in Schools, the nation's largest and most effective dropout prevention program. During his time on the Board of Directors of the Caldwell County Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Thuss has been a vocal supporter of local businesses and economic development throughout Caldwell County. He is a former member of the North Carolina Board of Health and a former member of the Human Resource Committee of the National Association of County Officials. After a year of service as an at-large member of the Board of Directors of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC), Dr. Thuss was honored as the NCACC's Outstanding Commissioner of the Year. Dr. John Thuss is a model public servant whose work for his community has earned him respect and gratitude across Western North Carolina. I am proud to honor Dr. John Thuss for his long service to Caldwell County and sincerely express the gratitude and best wishes of the people of North Carolina as he enters retirement.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chief Deputy Jerry Rice of Henderson County, North Carolina. On behalf of the people of Western North Carolina, I would like to thank Chief Deputy Rice for his dedication to Henderson County, and congratulate him on his retirement after three decades of faithful service. Chief Deputy Rice's long career in law enforcement began in 1986 with a position as a tele-communicator for the Brevard Police Department. That same year he completed Basic Law Enforcement training and subsequently worked as a patrol officer with the Brevard Police Department. In July 1987, Chief Deputy Rice began service with the Henderson County Sheriff's Office. There, he spent time in a wide range of roles, working at different points as a patrol deputy, a field training officer, a detective, and an undercover narcotics investigator. Later in his career, he held several supervisory positions in the Sheriff's Office serving as Detective Sergeant over Drug Enforcement, Detective Lieutenant supervising Property Crimes, Operations Lieutenant in CID, Chief Administrator of the Henderson County Detention Facility, and Operations Major. Over the course of his career, Chief Deputy Rice also spent six years as a member of SWAT, became a Rifle Marksman and a general and specialized firearms instructor, earned a license as a polygraph examiner, and became an airplane and rotary wing law enforcement pilot. Throughout his time with the Henderson County Sheriff's Office, Chief Deputy Rice was known for friendship, helpfulness, and dedication to the mission of his office. He earned a reputation for his clear understanding of the issues facing Henderson County and for his reasoned voice and counsel. I am proud to honor Chief Deputy Jerry Rice for his lifelong commitment to public service and to express the gratitude of myself and the people of Western North Carolina.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 699, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the legacy of Anne Samson. Anne was a selfless philanthropist who dedicated her life to serving her family and community. A daughter of Hungarian Holocaust survivors, Anne was a devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and friend. Anne's love for Israel and the Jewish people illuminated much of her work. Anne and her husband, Lee, actively served within the Jewish community and volunteered in Israel following the Six-Day War. Anne's philanthropy and selflessness touched many families, synagogues, and organizations. In her memory, the Samson family has helped establish the Anne Samson Memorial Fund which will provide assistance to the Jerusalem Journey summer program, in which hundreds of public school students have their very first Israel experience. Anne's life demonstrated that it is often the quiet leader who is the most impactful. She led by example, motivated by her strong convictions and Jewish faith. Beloved by her family and community, Anne's legacy lives on in her children and grandchildren who carry on her graciousness, hospitality and dedication to service. It is my honor to commemorate Anne Samson's memory today.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, but I wanted to clarify some of the debate that has been going on with my friend opposite, the gentleman from Florida. Many of the concerns that he has raised have been addressed in our Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Specifically, I put forth an amendment that required strong evaluations that would evaluate the scholarship program. Additionally, the committee passed an amendment to ensure not only strong accreditation standards as well, but equally important is the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. I have made a personal commitment to her to work on making sure that we have proper accountability with regard to this scholarship program. None of us wants to be loose with the American taxpayer dollars. I want to also stress that this program does not decrease funding for D.C. public schools or charter schools. Indeed it is an addition to that appropriation. But it really comes down this, Mr. Speaker: it is the students that have benefited from this particular program. I was part of a hearing that was held at Archbishop Carroll High School. When you look into the faces of those students that were given an opportunity with a scholarship to not have to go to the school because of where they live but they got a scholarship to be able to go to a private school, you look into their faces and you hear the stories of just how it has affected their families and given them hope, Mr. Speaker, it is one of those things that I think that we have to find a bipartisan solution to identify the problem areas, perhaps, that need to be addressed, but to also come alongside those parents, both fathers and mothers, who were there in the hearing who were applauding the successes of their children. It is with great pride that I strongly support H.R. 10. I encourage my colleagues opposite to do the same. I am committed to working through some of those issues that they have addressed.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Robbie Wilkie for his work as the Caldwell County Emergency Services Director and congratulate him on his retirement. Mr. Wilkie began his career in 1983 as a volunteer firefighter with the North Catawba Fire Department, where he continued serving through 2004. During that time, he also served as a firefighter for the Lenoir Fire Department from 1988 through 2004, where he worked his way through the ranks to eventually become Fire Captain. After working as a Fire Marshal from 2004 to 2010, Mr. Wilkie was eventually promoted to the Emergency Services Director position in 2013. While serving in this role, his duties included handling all budgetary, administrative, and policy decisions for Caldwell County Emergency Services, while coordinating all fire rescue efforts for Caldwell County. Due to his faithful service, Mr. Wilkie has received multiple awards throughout his career, including Firefighter of the Year from both the North Catawba Fire Department in 1985 and the Lenoir Fire Department in 1998, and the Author H. ``Ott'' Dellinger Leadership Award in July 2006. Mr. Wilkie has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to serving the people of Caldwell County in emergency management. As such, I am proud to honor Mr. Robbie Wilkie for his faithful service to the people of Caldwell County and I wish him the best on his retirement.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Principal Chief Michell Hicks of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, who is retiring on September 26, 2015. I am proud to call Chief Hicks a good friend and thank him for his dedicated service as Principal Chief. After graduating from Western Carolina University, Chief Hicks served for twelve years as the Principal Chief for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and prior to that served eight years as the Chief Finance Officer for the Eastern Band. During his tenure as Principal Chief, Chief Hicks was instrumental in the completion of several vital service facilities, such as the Shawn Blanton Emergency Operations Center, the Snowbird Youth Center, the new Justice Center and Jail, and a new Cherokee Hospital, scheduled to open in October of this year. Additionally, Chief Hicks spearheaded many educational efforts in the region. He developed and implemented a reading program for kindergarten children in the region, he oversaw the development of a financial literacy program for Cherokee youth, and he helped rekindle an interest in the Cherokee language by including it as required curriculum at Cherokee schools. Chief Hicks is known by his friends as a kind, compassionate man who, while cherishing the old Cherokee traditions, is a visionary for a better future for his people. His tremendous passion and vision earned him the Tribal Leader of the Year Award from the Native American Finance Officers Association. The exemplary leadership and vision of Chief Hicks is something that all of us can admire and respect. As such, I am proud to honor Principal Chief Michell Hicks on his faithful service to the people of Cherokee and congratulate him on his retirement.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2722.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the shale energy revolution, the United States is benefiting from the economic and energy security and, I might add, environmental benefits of a natural gas abundance. However, the EPA is threatening to take this energy advantage and make it a disadvantage. The EPA is currently trying to further regulate the byproduct of natural gas production, that of methane gas. The EPA, under the Obama administration, is at its worst. The Obama administration mission is clear: if it is not a ``green'' energy source that he likes, it should not exist. And Obama has proven that he will use the EPA to do all he can to make it more difficult and expensive for American families to utilize this incredibly wonderful source of natural gas that we have here in America. Lower energy prices for Americans, and we have also helped the environment. So I would urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing the burdensome mandates that will unnecessarily hinder natural gas production in the United States, thereby dismantling and diminishing the energy advantage that we have today.