Mark Meadows

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtfulness. I have often said there are two ways things get done here in Washington, D.C.: slow and never. Let's hope that this is one of those times where it is just slow and that we get the Senate to act on it. I would inform the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. But before I do that, I want to thank the staff on both sides of the committee. Oftentimes, we get up here and get to deliberate this, but it is the staffs who do the hard work. I thank our staff in the minority and, certainly, the majority staff for their hard work. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Democratic governments must be transparent and accountable to the American people. Recordkeeping laws are vital to both. In support of transparency and accountability, the Federal Register Act of 1935, as my friend from the District of Columbia mentioned earlier, was created, and it actually created the Federal Register. The Federal Register, a lot of people are not aware, is a daily publication of government information, such as Presidential documents, rules, proposed rules, and public notices. The Federal Register provides official notice of a document's existence to the public. The Federal Register also provides the building blocks for the Code of Federal Regulations, which makes it easier for the public to find Federal regulations by compiling them all in one place. In 1994, the Government Publishing Office began publishing the Federal Register online. When I got here, I actually got a paper copy of these Federal Registers, and I didn't know what to do with them. I mean, they were just reams and reams. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is right. This is a good-government, efficient way, hopefully, that gives the Federal Register the ability to save American taxpayer money. That online Register now includes navigational aids and links to related content, and it is fully searchable and downloadable. Congress has previously taken steps to make the Federal Register more efficient. In 2017, Congress passed the Federal Register Printing Savings Act. That law saved taxpayer dollars by actually requiring the GPO to provide only printed copies to Member offices that subscribe or request a copy of a specific issue. H.R. 1654 continues in this spirit of reform with a commonsense change for the GPO and other agencies and gives them greater flexibility to make sure that we can save with online publications. This bill also eliminates the requirements that agencies provide the National Archives with multiple copies of the documents submitted to the Federal Register. That requirement made sense when paper copies were mailed or delivered for publication, but now agencies can simply do that by sending duplicate copies electronically to comply with the law. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this particular piece of legislation. I thank the gentlewoman for her support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, let's be clear: H.R. 1 takes money from hardworking American taxpayers and puts it straight in the pockets of politicians. Let me be abundantly clear: This bill that the Democrats have proposed provides taxpayer funding for Federal campaigns, Mr. Chair. By voting for this bill, the Democrats are voting to take the American hardworking taxpayers' money and actually give it back to be used for their own campaigns. By voting for this bill, the Democrats are saying, ``We deserve to stay elected.'' This is a money grab for politicians. This unfairly benefits elected incumbents. It protects career politicians. Under the guise of campaign finance reform and dark money reform, this 600-page bill does nothing but fill the campaign coffers of people who have already been elected. Not only that, this bill now includes a tax stuck in last night as a manager's amendment in Rules. Yes, they are wanting to tax American citizens to make sure that they get reelected and put money back in their own campaign. Mr. Chair, if this is how the majority party believes that we are going to get transparency in Congress, it is not doing it. It is not living up to that. I find it even interesting, because it seems to trample on our First Amendment rights to speak freely and voluntarily participate in the process that we hold as a privilege of electing our elected leaders. To top it off, Mr. Chair, they want you and every hardworking American taxpayer to pay for it. Now, I can see it coming up, because it is going to come very soon, and they may talk about all the wonderful virtues of this particular bill, but when they vote for it, they are actually voting to send taxpayer moneys to get me reelected. So I look for that endgame when we say: Democrats vote to give $3.5 million to reelect the Freedom Caucus chairman. I don't think that that is what America is all about.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri is exactly right. It is the statutes that allow this President to do this. The statutes don't provide for national emergencies on climate change. They don't allow for national emergencies on gun violence. But they do allow it in terms of this particular issue. The President is exactly right. There is a crisis at the border, Mr. Speaker. But not only this President recognizes it. The previous President, Obama, in 2014, did as well when he requested $3.7 billion in emergency spending to secure the border. Where was the outrage then? Where was the outrage from my colleagues across the aisle? President Obama even went further to say that we needed to secure our border to deter both adults and children from the dangerous journey that they embarked on. Where was the outrage across the aisle then, Mr. Speaker? It was not there. Keeping criminals, human traffickers, and drug smugglers away from our communities is paramount. Yes, indeed, we do have an opioid problem. We have actually appropriated billions of dollars to address that. And yet, somehow, the drugs flowing across our southern border are not a crisis? Again, President Obama seemed to agree with this and declared a national emergency for transnational criminal organizations, specifically calling out Mexico's Los Zetas gang, and provided more authority for ICE to actually combat that; a national emergency. Where was the outrage across the aisle then? But we don't even have to look just at the previous administration. President Clinton also declared a national emergency to go after narcotics traffickers. Mr. Speaker, I just find it just unbelievable that here today, that we have got these newfound constitutionalists across the aisle, wanting to rein in the President's authority. This is about defeating President Trump. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1063. I appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks as it relates to this particular bill. The bipartisan Presidential Library Donation Reform Act, which was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland, my good friend, Mr. Cummings, is certainly one worthy of our support, Mr. Speaker. Under current law, Presidents can fundraise for their Presidential libraries through private, unlimited donations while they are still in office. There are no current requirements for any Presidential library fundraising organization to disclose the source or size of the donation it receives. Donations can be from individuals, companies, associations, and foreign governments, with no transparency. Presidential libraries have become more expensive throughout the years. President Clinton's library cost $165 million. President Bush's cost $250 million. President Obama's is projected to cost more than $500 million. This bill requires Presidential library fundraising organizations to disclose to the National Archives information about contributors who have donated $200 or more in any quarter. The National Archives would then be tasked with making the data available on its website in a downloadable format. H.R. 1063 also sunsets the disclosure requirement to when the management of the actual library is transferred to the National Archives. Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. It is a pro- transparency bill that has already passed the House, as my colleague mentioned, not once but three different times, with overwhelming support under both Democratic and Republican majorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1065, the Social Media Use in Clearance Investigations Act of 2019, introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch). Mr. Speaker, I was at one of these hearings where we were talking about this very issue and how it was just mind-boggling that we would not use current protocols, in terms of looking at national security clearances and the approval thereof. It was Mr. Lynch's initiative here to actually address that in a legislative manner, and I support his good work there. Millions of Americans use social media to interact with family members, friends, and followers. Public posts on social media websites occasionally provide a unique insight into a person's character and interests. In several high-profile cases, Federal contractors with valid security clearances who leaked classified information had posted highly suspicious entries on their social media accounts. For example, Edward Snowden used various online aliases to post suspicious content on the comment boards of a tech magazine before he received his security clearance. A simple check--mind you, a simple check--would have let us know of these suspicious activities and certainly could have worked to mitigate some of the damages that we all know too well. Private companies and private citizens can and often do search publicly available social media accounts to learn more about job applicants. However, our government does not regularly check the social media of individuals who have applied for security clearances. On May 12, 2016, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a new policy permitting the use of public social media information in security clearance investigations. Despite that legal clearance, most security clearance investigations still do not involve a social media check. Various Federal entities have studied the potential use of social media information in background investigations for at least a decade. The National Security Agency, the Army, OPM, and others have conducted pilot programs on the effectiveness of social media checks, and it is not clear what use has been made of this data for these programs or whether the programs can be expanded to cover more applicants. Concerning online behavior should be one of many factors used to evaluate a person's fitness to access classified information. H.R. 1065, the Social Media Use in Clearance Investigations Act, is a step toward creating a more holistic security clearance review process. The bill requires OMB to evaluate pilot programs conducted to date and estimate the costs of wider implementation of publicly available social media checks. This report is due within 6 months and will help guide subsequent legislation to require checks of publicly available data. We cannot wait any longer to modernize our security clearance process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this thoughtful piece of legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the gentleman, again, for his thoughtfulness on this particular piece of legislation. I know that he has worked with my previous colleague, now the Governor of Florida, Mr. DeSantis, and we have great bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I would urge the adoption and passing of H.R. 1065, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1064, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on this effort. Any time that you support whistleblowers, it is a good day in Congress; and to do that a bipartisan way, with the gentlewoman's leadership, is certainly a day that should be applauded. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. Whistleblowers in the Federal Government should be able to tell their supervisor when something is going wrong. That is the truth, no matter what, especially in cases involving classified information which implies, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of national security. Under the current law, whistleblowers dealing with classified information in the intelligence community can make protected disclosures to their supervisors. However, whistleblowers dealing with classified information outside of the intelligence community do not have the same protection. With fewer legally-protected options, employees outside of the intelligence community may be more likely to make an illegal disclosure to people or entities without the proper security clearance. Federal employees dealing with classified information outside of the IC community must be reassured that they can report wrongdoing to the appropriate people, including their supervisors. With that protection, whistleblowers will be less likely to disclose protected sensitive information on waste, fraud, and abuse to the media or other entities or individuals without the proper security clearance. This bill would allow whistleblowers to make protected disclosures of classified information to individuals within their chain of command, as the gentlewoman has already suggested. There are very few conceivable circumstances in which a whistleblower complaint to a supervisor would jeopardize national security, but such disclosures are not currently protected. There is no reasonable basis for concern about whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government having the right to contact individuals within their chain of command about waste, fraud, or abuse of a classified nature. These additional whistleblower protections will make it easier for Federal employees to do the responsible thing when it comes to classified disclosures. I urge my colleagues to support this. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 995. But before I do, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on the passage, I believe, of her first bill here on the House floor; and go even further to say that, in keeping with this bipartisan support of H.R. 995, the Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2019 that was introduced, and is introduced, by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer). Mr. Speaker, transparency and public participation are critical to maintaining the public trust in its government. However, Federal agencies have increasingly resolved litigation by entering into settlement agreements rather than going through a lengthy public trial. Now settlement agreements are often negotiated behind closed doors. Those secret negotiations effectively prevent the public from participating in important policy sessions. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate this. When these settlements are done, when they are actually consummated, they set up future public policy, and to do that behind closed doors is certainly not something that a transparent government should be about. State and local governments, industry stakeholders, and taxpayers are often directly affected by these settlements, but unable to provide input. For example, through the settlement agreement, the Environmental Protection Agency required the city of Fort Smith, Arkansas, to overhaul its sewer system in 12 years. Sewer utility bills increased by 167 percent in 3 years to fund the obligation of this agreement. At the same time, Fort Smith residents' income actually decreased by 11 percent. The burden of a Federal settlement can be difficult to see and understand. Poor recordkeeping makes it impossible for Congress and the public to determine the full impact of the Federal settlement agreements. Agencies release information about settlements at their discretion. Some agencies rely even on press releases to release the amount of information. So, as a result, the public only sees the facts through what the agency puts out and only in the most favorable light. So, in many cases these closed-door negotiations, the terms of the settlement are deemed confidential. Without an explanation to the public, the process becomes even more opaque and seemingly arbitrary. H.R. 995 will shine a light on Federal settlement agreements. This bill will require the establishment of electronic and publicly available databases for agencies' settlement agreements. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this particular bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), the sponsor of this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for his leadership on this particular bill. I urge the adoption of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1079, the CASES for Constituents Act, introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and, as was mentioned, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy). I have some prepared remarks, Mr. Speaker, but let me just deviate from that for just a second. Finally, two people have come together to get rid of the archaic way that we have to get disclosures, that only go to hurt our constituents whom we aim to serve. I mean, only in the government do we have this kind of way where we actually have to make sure that we run it over by a carrier pigeon to get something done. All of us have been together where we are trying to serve our constituents. Sometimes it is very time sensitive, Mr. Speaker, and what do they want? Well, you need to go get the privacy release form. And if you go get the privacy release form: Well, no. That is not okay. You have got to get their actual signature. And so we are sending people all over. So it is with heartfelt gratitude, Mr. Speaker, that I want to thank these two gentlemen for doing something that is not only common sense but much needed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) in support of this particular piece of legislation that he and the gentleman who just spoke have led so eloquently and diligently on.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I want to go ahead and close, if we can, at this particular point, but before I do so, I want to thank all of our staff. It is so easy at times for us to get up here, and yet the legislation that gets introduced oftentimes is not just due to our personal staff in our offices, but the committee staff, and so I want to make sure that I emphasize that today. Mr. Speaker, I will close with this final comment. I had a constituent not long ago who said: You know, I will just email you a release, and we won't have to go through all of this getting it in writing. I said: No, no, no, no, no. That will take an act of Congress. Well, let me just tell you, today the Congress has acted. Mr. Speaker, I urge support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill to provide real consequences against those who would seek to commit fraud at the expense of America's Veterans. H.R 450, the Bipartisan ``Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act,'' would close loopholes in existing laws and provide law enforcement with additional tools to crack down on fraud cases in connection with Veterans' benefits. In recent history, financial predators have increasingly begun targeting America's veterans, particularly those in low income housing, looking to commit fraud and rob them of their federal benefits. Many of these fraudsters pose as federal caseworkers, offering to expedite Veterans' claims or assist them with unanswered questions--only to charge them exorbitant fees while providing little or no service in return. Absolutely no veteran should be defrauded of their well-earned benefits, particularly those in need. Those who defraud veterans and their families of their benefits not only harm these victims, but they also diminish resources required to pay the claims and fund the programs needed to assist those who have served our Nation. Mr. Speaker, Congress has both a responsibility and an obligation to step up and protect our Veterans against this activity. Unfortunately, current law hamstrings prosecutors and allows for criminals engaging in this type of conduct to escape with minimal penalty. H.R. 450 would make needed changes to that process. It would impose new penalties on fraudsters--including a fine, imprisonment of up to five years, or both. By attaching a criminal penalty to this behavior, the bill provides prosecutors with the tools to take adequate and appropriate legal action against those who seek to defraud veterans. This is a common sense reform that would send a loud and clear message of support to those who have served our country so faithfully and protect them against any effort to rob them of their hard earned benefits. Finally, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, Ted Deutch, who is the lead Democratic cosponsor, for his leadership on this important measure. I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the vote on H.R. 450-- Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Roll Call No. 70.

Mr. MEADOWS

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his words on the importance of making sure that our Federal workforce is properly compensated. Indeed, this is an important subject. Mr. Chairman, I guess my question here today is, fundamentally, if it is so important, then why haven't we had a hearing? Why haven't we had a markup? Why the rush to push this bill on the floor? Not too long ago, my good friend from Maryland, the chairman of the committee, would be on this same floor arguing the same thing: Why are we not having a markup? Why are we not going through regular order? Mr. Chairman, I remind this body that, less than 30 days ago, there was a vote on the House floor that said we are going to return to regular order; we are going to make sure that every bill goes through the committee, has a markup, and actually has fair debate. Yet, here we are, less than 30 days into this new Congress, and we are putting forth a messaging bill that, quite frankly, has not been vetted. The amendment process has not come out of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. I will also say, and this is no laughing matter, I have been one of the few Members on our side of the aisle on this committee who has actively engaged in trying to make sure that our Federal workforce is not only compensated, but properly recognized. Mr. Chairman, here is my problem. According to Federal workers, over 25 percent of them believe that raises do not happen based on merit, that everyone gets a raise. Indeed, this bill does that. It says, regardless of how you perform, we are going to give everybody the same increase. Now, that same Federal workforce went even further. One-third of them said that we don't do enough to get rid of poor performers. What message are we sending to the Federal workforce here today? We are rushing a bill that has not gone through committee. We have not provided meaningful amendments that are actually appropriate. We have a Federal workforce that says they don't get raises based on the merits of their work, on the hard work they put forth. Indeed, they are saying that a third of the employees are getting compensated regardless of their performances. Now, when we look at that, what message does this body send to the Federal workforce? It says that it doesn't matter what kind of job you do. I think that is a terrible message to send. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, as we look at this bill--and I am sure we will debate the merits of this particular piece of legislation--we have the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, here, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, both Members who I respect greatly. Yet, this rush to put this messaging bill on the floor does nothing but damage the underlying support that many of us on both sides of the aisle have for the Federal workforce. I strongly object to this particular measure. Let's slow it down. Let's go through the appropriate time to make sure that, indeed, we have a markup, that we have a bill. The chairman knows full well that Federal workers, not only in and around Washington, D.C., but across the Nation, deserve our full attention, and this deserves a full debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend, the ranking member of the committee, and a champion for the American people.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am glad the Chairman made this admonishment because some of the comments that were just offered actually seemed to be directed at me from a standpoint of respect. I would remind the gentleman from Maryland, both gentlemen from Maryland, that this is one of the individuals who has actually worked in a bipartisan fashion on TPS and a number of things. The majority leader knows that well. I would also say if we are going to make broad-sweeping statements that impugn the motives of individuals, it needs to start with the previous President of the United States, Barack Obama, because he froze the Federal workforce at zero three different times. I didn't hear the outrage on this floor, Mr. Chairman, that I am hearing today. It is somehow always one side of the aisle's fault, unless it happens to be their party's President that invokes the freeze. So I would say, Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that those broad- brush characterizations are not conveyed here on the House floor.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I respectfully yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MEADOWS. I appreciate the gentleman, but I want to make sure, Mr. Chairman, we correct the record because the gentleman is correct in 2009 and 2010. But we gave them raises in 2010. The Federal pay freezes were 2011, `12, and `13 when the same President was saying that everything was going fine. So I want to remind the gentleman that if we are going to look at history, then I think--to use the gentleman's words--let's not use revisionist history.

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to direct it to you. The same gentleman who is making the argument here today was not on the House floor talking about how evil the President was and how he should not be doing that. So I just want to make sure we correct the record here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.