Lynn Westmoreland

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring awareness to the reckless acts of the Environmental Protection Agency. On August 5, 2015, the EPA triggered the release of millions of gallons of toxic waste into the Animas River near Durango, Colorado, containing lead, arsenic, and other pollutants. Originally, contaminated water was seeping into the Gold King Mine from another nearby mine. When the Gold King Mine owner refused to allow the EPA on his property, the EPA threatened to fine him up to $35,000 a day--let me repeat--$35,000 a day for a leak that wasn't coming from the owner's mine. It was only after these thuggish threats that he was forced to let the EPA on his property. In fact, as recently as last week, investigators from the Interior Department concluded their independent investigation into the August spill and determined that the spill was preventible and occurred due to the actions of the EPA. The best that EPA administrator Gina McCarthy could do is say that she was ``deeply sorry'' and that the spill was a ``tragic and unfortunate accident.'' That is not all: there was no accountability, no reparation, nothing. How can the American people trust a government agency charged with protecting our environment when the same Agency is responsible for causing even more damage? Actions speak louder than words. This is more of the same from the EPA. They are another arm of the Federal Government looking to bully private citizens, but this is nothing new from the EPA. Almost a decade ago, a gentleman from my district faced a costly, almost devastating battle with the EPA. Mr. Paul McKnight owned an old cotton warehouse in Senoia, Georgia. After a former deadbeat tenant of Mr. McKnight, who had already been responsible for the EPA spending $1.6 million in a brownfield cleanup, could not afford to remove 2,000 barrels of toxic waste from this warehouse that Mr. McKnight knew did not exist, the EPA was called in to inspect the building by some anonymous caller who said that they could smell a leak. Once the EPA got there, their inspector said they couldn't smell a leak. There was no leak, but they did find 2,000 barrels containing toxic material. Without Mr. McKnight's knowledge, the EPA declared this warehouse an ``imminent fire hazard'' and cleaned up the chemicals at a cost of $800,000, even though the previous tenant had a bid of 170. Later, at a public forum, an EPA representative stated that the EPA had the funds to clean up the warehouse, only to bill Mr. McKnight later for that overpriced cleanup. Not only did they bill him for the overpriced cleanup, but they sought over $1 million in cleanup fees and placed a lien on his real estate holdings, including his farm and his home. I helped Mr. McKnight to get the case reconsidered. After 8 years in court, he was able to get it reduced down to $600,000. The EPA shouldn't use legal loopholes and cower behind exemptions at the cost of taxpayers and, not only that, to charge somebody that had no knowledge of the barrels even being there, rather than the man who put the barrels there. This gentleman served 1 year and 4 months in Federal prison for this. It was his second offense, and yet Mr. McKnight was fined over $1 million. That is why I have introduced three bills over the last 2 months targeting the EPA. My bills: H.R. 3531, No Exemptions for EPA Act; H.R. 3655, EPA Pays Act; and H.R. 3699, Judgment Fund Taxpayer Accountability Act are all aimed at holding the EPA to the same standards and requirements as private citizens. My bills remove these legal loopholes for the EPA and force them to repay the Federal Government for any damages the EPA causes. If I were to accidentally cause the same disaster, do you think that I would get off by just saying ``I'm sorry and I promise not to do it again''? That is why we have introduced these three bills. So I ask my colleagues to, please, join me in holding the EPA accountable in any future accidents by supporting H.R. 3531, 3655, and 3699.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has sold our nation's security for some magic beans. This Iran deal is a bad deal for our national security. It is a bad deal for our allies--particularly Israel. Removing sanctions against ballistic missiles and conventional arms, would happen before Iran halts its nuclear activity. If we try to re- impose sanctions, Iran gets to walk away from the deal free of sanctions all together and keep its money and nuclear weapons. The way I see it, Iran is the only one benefitting from this deal. President Obama wants people to believe this is the best deal possible. I say, if this is the best deal, then I don't want any deal at all. I am voting NO on this deal because I made a promise to my children and grandchildren that I would fight to make this nation safer and stronger for the next generation. I cannot break that promise to my grandchildren. This is a bad deal. I urge my colleagues to vote YES on the rule and NO on passage of this agreement.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to congratulate Pratt & Whitney for their 90 years of excellence in aviation. Because of those determined and innovative founders, Pratt & Whitney has become a leader in aviation innovation, such as their groundbreaking development of the air-cooled Wasp engine. Their engines have produced the power for some of the most formidable military aircraft in American history. Even today the power behind Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightning II aircraft comes from a Pratt & Whitney engine. I am proud that Pratt & Whitney's engine center calls Columbus, Georgia, home, but more proud of the investment they have made in the community. The Columbus plant employs 1,026 highly skilled employees to refurbish jet engines and brings in over $750 million a year. I have no doubt that Pratt & Whitney's impressive accomplishments and milestones will continue on for another 90 years. Their commitment to producing high-quality and dependable engines help keep our servicemen and -women in the air safe. We are fortunate to have their support for our local economy and look forward to many more years of their business in our great State.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment as it goes along with the collaborative efforts we are trying to include in the bill with tribal and State governments. I just want to thank the gentlewoman for proposing this amendment, and I rise in full support of it.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, this does not prevent anybody from suing. This stops the EPA from this sue and settle--what I would call ``scam''--where it allows the groups or companies or whatever to come in and sue and allow them--I mentioned there were 60 different cases-- the ability to make 100 new rulings that did not go through the normal rulemaking procedure but were done by court rulings. I think it is appropriate that we not allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on these attorneys' fees that are being used to do this--to promote the Environmental Protection Agency. Rather than going through the regular rulemaking process, it is doing it by a court ruling. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, the United States is facing a crisis of executive overreach, and nowhere else is this more true than with the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's escalation of sue and settle cases to change the law through Federal court rulings threatens our economy and the ability to create jobs, not to mention bypassing the normal rulemaking process. By operating hand in hand with radical environmental groups that are willing participants in these types of actions, the EPA's use of sue and settle not only endangers the economy but also our constitutional separation of powers. Here is how it works: An organization sues the EPA or an agency such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, demanding that the agency apply the law in a new, unintended, and expanded way that increases the agency's jurisdiction. The agency, rather than defending the law, enters into a consent decree with the party who filed the original lawsuit. A judge then signs the consent decree without significant review since the two disputing parties are in agreement. Suddenly, the agency has new, expansive powers to wield against job creators in the form of a legally binding settlement that creates rules and priorities outside of the normal rulemaking process. Between 2009 and 2012, the EPA chose not to defend itself in over 60 of these lawsuits from special interest advocacy groups. Those 60 lawsuits resulted in settlement agreements and in the EPA's publishing more than 100 new regulations. Also included in these legally binding settlements are requirements that U.S. taxpayers must pay for the attorneys of the organization that initiated the action. According to a 2011 GAO report, between 1995 and 2010, three large environmental activist groups, like the Sierra Club, received almost $6 million in attorneys' fees alone. An example of sue and settle occurred with a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction rule. This was in response to a sue and settle agreement the EPA made with the Sierra Club in 2011. As noted by Louisiana Senator David Vitter in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in 2013: Instead of defending the EPA's own regulations and the SSM provisions in the EPA-approved air programs of 39 States, the EPA simply agreed to include an obligation to respond to the petition in the settlement of an entirely separate lawsuit. Sue and settle is made possible because, under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, potential litigants are given broad standing to go to court because Congress has defined causes of action under these laws. Under my amendment, no funds can be used to pay legal fees under any settlement regarding any case arising under the three acts I mentioned--period, case closed, end of story. Litigants can still sue, but they will no longer be financially rewarded by the American taxpayer for their efforts. I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment to reduce the secretive transfer of U.S. taxpayer dollars to other organizations. By restricting Federal agencies from having the ability to pay attorneys' fees, we will not only reduce Federal spending but also reduce the incentive for these self-interest groups to continue suing the Federal Government and taking American taxpayer dollars that could be used to reduce our Federal deficit. It is inexcusable to require taxpayers to pay the legal bills of environmental groups to collude with the EPA in order to expand the Agency's abilities. This is one way Congress can fight the expansion of executive powers by this administration and its most out-of-control agency. With this amendment, Congress can ensure taxpayers are protected from funding the legal efforts of environmental advocacy organizations and from arming the EPA with draconian enforcement powers. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WESTMORELAND. As I would like to repeat, Mr. Chairman, this does not keep anybody from suing. The intent of this amendment is to keep the EPA from creating rules by judicial bodies rather than a normal rulemaking procedure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 2015 I missed votes due to a previously scheduled doctor's appointment.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I honor today a dedicated Georgia citizen and leader, James ``Jim'' E. Tudor. After a 29-year-long career, Jim Tudor has recently announced his retirement from the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores, where he has contributed his time and loyalty since January 1987. Before dedicating his career to Georgia's convenience store industry, Mr. Jim Tudor worked for nine years at 7-Eleven, followed by two years of committed service in the United States Army. He is also a 1972 graduate from the University of Cincinnati. In 2000, Jim Tudor was honored with the Liberty Award from Brown & Williamson, a now-retired American tobacco company responsible for producing many of the United States' popular cigarette brands. Jim has also received various Pigeon Awards presented by The Pigeon Committee, a group of fellow Georgia lobbyists. Namely, in 2012, Jim received the annual Pigeon Award for his work towards the legalization of Sunday alcohol sales in Georgia. Mr. Tudor was again recognized by James Magazine as one of the Top 10 Lobbyists and Associations in Georgia for three consecutive years, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Aside from his notable career and presence in the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores, Jim maintains a strong presence in the Covington Rotary, and, previously, the South Dekalb Rotary. Within his community he acts as an active mentor and leader, dedicating his time to the Georgia Youth Assembly and The YMCA, amongst various other youth groups. Jim is also a devout Christian and has served in various leadership roles in his church. Jim and his wife, Sandra Tudor, have four children--James, Kelly, Bobby and Bill--and five grandchildren to whom Jim, known better (more affectionately?) as ``Poppy'' to his grandkids, refers to as ``the reward you get for not killing your children''. Upon retirement, Georgia natives Jim and Sandra Tudor plan to roam the countryside in their beloved retro-style 2015 Mellow Yellow Winnebago. Over the past three decades, James E. Tudor has been a crucial and unforgettable part of the Georgia Association of Convenience Stores. His service in and out of the workplace has left a lasting impact, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to meet such a devoted Georgia citizen. A leader, mentor, veteran and friend--Jim, on behalf of the Georgia community, I offer the sincerest thank you and best wishes on your retirement.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 2015, the House of Representatives considered H.R. 1295, the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. During the roll call vote, I mistakenly voted no on H.R. 1295. Therefore, I submit this statement to clarify my intention was to vote yes on H.R. 1295.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 years, on September 11 and 12, 2012, the United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, were the target of terrorist attacks. These attacks resulted in the deaths of four Americans: Sean Smith; Tyrone Woods; Glen Doherty; and the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, as well as two other Americans critically injured. It comes at a time close to Memorial Day, when this country can honor these individuals that gave their life and their service not just for this country, but for the freedom and democracy around the world of others. The gravity of the attacks raise serious questions regarding the U.S. presence in Benghazi, Libya, particularly as those questions related to the policies, decisions, and activities of the administration and relevant executive branch agencies before, during, and after the attacks. For nearly 2 years, Congress sought answers to these questions. However, the administration's valid response has exposed the limits encountered by our standing committees. These responses revealed a less than competent or transparent accounting about the attacks. Consequently, the House created, with the support of our Democratic colleagues, the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Everywhere I go, Mr. Speaker, I have people ask me: What is taking so long? What is taking so long for us to get the facts about what happened in Benghazi? We are going to do our best today to explain to the American people and to the public and to you, Mr. Speaker, why it has taken so long, why it is requiring us to continue to subpoena and beg and plead for the information that we need to be able to deliver this report to this body and to the American people. The Speaker appointed me and six of my Republican colleagues to this committee. The minority leader appointed five of our Democratic colleagues. We have been directed by the House to conduct a complete investigation across the spectrum of all, A-L-L, all relevant executive branch agencies and issue a definitive final report on the events surrounding the September 11-12, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Specifically, we are directed to investigate and report on: all policies, decisions, and activities that contributed to the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 2012, as well as those that affected the ability of the United States to prepare for those attacks; number two, all policies, decisions, and activities to respond to and repel the attacks on United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 2012, including efforts to rescue United States personnel; number three, internal and public executive branch communications about the attacks on the United States facility in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 2012; number four, accountability for policies and decisions relating to the security of facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and the response to the attacks, including individuals and entities responsible for those policies and decisions; number five, executive branch authorities' efforts to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of these attacks on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11 and 12, 2012; number six, executive branch activities and efforts to comply with congressional inquiries into the attacks on the United States facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 and 12, 2012; recommendations for improving executive branch cooperation and compliance with congressional oversight investigations; information related to lessons learned from the attacks and executive branch activities and efforts to protect United States facilities and personnel abroad; and any other relevant issues relating to the attacks, the response to the attacks, or the investigation by the House of Representatives into the attacks. I think that number nine is a particularly relevant point. It says ``all other relevant issues.'' That is one of the questions that we have been receiving: Are we stepping out of bounds on what this committee was supposed to do? The answer is absolutely not. Using these instructions as a guide, the committee requested and reviewed a substantial volume of information that was previously produced to the House, and new information never before produced to Congress. The committee has reviewed more than 20,000 pages of emails and documents produced by the State Department never before released to Congress. This new material includes emails that were sent to or received by the former Secretary of State relevant to Benghazi, as well as documents and emails that were part of the State Department's Accountability Review Board proceedings. In addition, hundreds of pages of emails never before seen by Congress have been produced by the White House. The Department of Justice and the intelligence community have also produced documents never before seen by Congress. Further, the committee has interviewed executive branch personnel, including survivors of the Benghazi terror attacks, none of whom have ever been interviewed by previous committees. The committee has also interviewed others who have been able to provide indispensable firsthand details of the U.S. presence in Benghazi, Libya. We know that this is not a complete universe of information held by the executive branch. Our investigation has uncovered new witnesses, new documents, and new facts related to the Benghazi terror attacks. Ironically, the largest impediment to getting this investigation done in a timely manner and being able to write a final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi is the executive branch itself. The committee has issued letters, subpoenas, has threatened to hold and has held public compliance hearings, with slow to little to no action at all. Take the State Department, for example--the State Department is a necessary focus of this investigation; yet their compliance posture with the committee and Congress has proved unpredictable at best. When this committee was formed 1 year ago, the State Department had yet to fully comply with two outstanding subpoenas issued in 2013 by another committee. One subpoena dealt specifically with documents pertaining to the State Department's Accountability Review Board, known as the ARB. The other subpoena dealt with documents that had previously undergone limited congressional review, where Members' access to the documents and information was restricted to certain dates and times set by the State Department. These subpoenas were still legally binding on the State Department when this committee was created; yet the Department had not fulfilled them. In an effort to expedite the Department's fulfillment of these subpoenas, the select committee prioritized the Department's production of documents under these two subpoenas, as opposed to issuing new requests. In addition, by directing the Department to identify documents under these existing subpoenas, the committee was better positioned to receive new documents in a more expeditious manner while, at the same time, judiciously reviewing the work of past committees. These negotiations resulted in the State Department providing 15,000 pages of new documents to the committee in August and September of last year. This production also fulfilled the Department's obligation for one of the two subpoenas. The review of these documents was enlightening, both in what it disclosed and what it did not. Here is what it did disclose. For the first time, the Department produced eight emails, eight to or from former Secretary Clinton. Additionally, the committee became aware that former Secretary Clinton had used a private email account to conduct official State Department business. Importantly, the committee did not release the existence of the private email account because of its commitment to investigate all the facts in a fair and impartial manner. Here is what it didn't disclose. From the review of the 15,000 pages, however, the committee recognized that there were significant omissions in the documents. Notably, there were very few emails between and among former Secretary Clinton's senior staff and the Secretary. As a result, last November, the committee requested the State Department produce specific documents and emails related to Benghazi and Libya for the Secretary and 10 of her senior staff. In the 2 months following the committee's request, committee staff consistently relayed to the Department that its new top priority was all of Secretary Clinton's emails. Almost 3 months later, on February 13, 2015, the Department produced approximately 300 emails to and from the former Secretary during her time as the head of the State Department. Remember, these are emails of which the State Department never possessed and didn't have to look for; yet it took that length of time. They didn't produce a single document to the committee related to the remaining portions of the November request. What was the State Department doing during the time the former Secretary was going through her emails? After they produced these emails, the State Department asked what our priority was. We continued to inform them that the 10 senior officials identified in the November request were our priority, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, and Susan Rice. The State Department told committee staff that this request was too broad and that it was unable to search for these documents. On March 4, 2015, the committee issued a subpoena for the documents and emails first requested in November. This subpoena sought documents and emails for the 10 senior State Department officials, including those named previously. Despite the committee indicating emails and documents from the subpoena were its top priority, the Department informed the committee that it would instead begin producing documents pursuant to the outstanding ARB subpoena. Remember, this subpoena was first issued in August of 2013 and reissued on January 28, 2015, since it expired at the end of the previous Congress. I would also point out that the law requires that these records--and this is the records from the ARB--and, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that you understand this, that the law says that these ``records shall be separated from all other records of the Department of State and shall be maintained under appropriate safeguards to preserve the confidentiality and classification of information.'' This means the records should have been sitting on a shelf somewhere, easily identifiable. Unfortunately, it took them 2 years to find where this ARB report was supposed to be segregated and put up. The committee continued to indicate that its priority was for the emails from the senior State Department personnel that were first requested in November. The Department's response: it could not search for these documents. Instead, the Department ignored the committee's request; and, on April 15, 2015, nearly 2 years after Congress first issued a subpoena for the ARB's documents, the State Department finally produced more than 1,700 pages of documents related to the ARB. Again, instead of responding to the committee's request, on April 23, 2015, the Department produced an additional 2,500 pages of documents related to the ARB. The Department has said that, with minor exceptions, it has now fulfilled the requirements of that subpoena. Notwithstanding the ARB production, the committee continued to press the Department. Its top priority is the documents from the original November 2014 request and the March subpoena. The State Department, however, has done little but talk about the breadth of the subpoena and the inability to adequately search for documents. The Department continues to state that it does not have the technical capabilities to do such a wide search without specific search terms; yet the Department never used any search terms to conduct in its search, nor has the Department ever suggested any search terms to the committee. To help the committee better understand the Department's technical capabilities--or lack thereof--the committee has taken several different steps. We asked the State Department to bring its technology expert and its records officer to a meeting to discuss how records were kept, retrieved, and produced. Specifically, we requested a meeting ``with the relevant people from within the State Department who can explain in detail how the State Department maintains its records and how it has researched for documents pursuant to this committee's November request and further detail the limitations of the Department's ability to fully respond to the Chairman's document request. These people would likely include individuals from Legislative Affairs, Office of the Legal Adviser, Bureau of Information Resource Management, and possibly the records officer and any other individual who will be able to answer detailed questions on the topic. This meeting will help us further sequence and prioritize the information and issues in the committee's request, as you suggested we do in your letter of February 13 to Chairman Gowdy,'' that the State Department sent us. We also included a list of 13 questions to the Department to help guide the discussion. Samples of these questions include ``the size of the universe of potentially relevant hard copy and/or electronic field for each person from the data range period, keyword or phrase searches the Department plans to use for production,'' and ``any limitations imposed on the type of data to be searched.'' These are some pretty straightforward questions. When the State Department appeared for the meeting, they did not only bring those subject matter experts with them, the staff they did bring could not answer these basic questions. In fact, it was during this meeting for the first time that the committee learned that the State Department was not in possession of the former Secretary's emails. However, there was no mention of her use of a private server. The committee again asked the Department to meet with these individuals. Again, the Department did not provide them. At an April 10 meeting between committee staff and the Department, the State Department brought in an individual. Yet when pressed by committee staff on these specific questions, the Department refused to provide the specific answers. Last week, we continued the pressure. We told the Department that members of the committee, including myself, would travel to the State Department to view firsthand how they search for documents and have a discussion about the shortcomings they claim to have. But what did the Department do when we told them that we were coming? They scrambled and did everything possible to deter our visit. Earlier this week, however, we did learn more about the Department's internal process for identifying and reviewing documents, but we didn't get this information from the Department. Instead, we had to learn it from a lawsuit. This past week, on May 18, the State Department's Acting Director for its Information Programs and Services filed a sworn declaration in a FOIA lawsuit, the Freedom of Information lawsuit. That declaration outlined the steps the State Department had taken since it received approximately 55,000 pages of emails from former Secretary Clinton in December of 2014 to review those documents for public release under the Freedom of Information rules. Also, in that sworn statement, the State Department asserted that it had dedicated, on a full-time basis, a project manager, two case analysts, and nine Freedom of Information reviewers to review all 55,000 pages of emails since April. These 12 individuals are precisely the 12 FTE positions that were recently funded by the State Department's $2.5 million reprogramming request. Let me say that again. The State Department repeatedly complained to the committee that a lack of staff and other resources prevented it from making more timely production of documents to the committee, so the committee supported a reallocation of funds to enable the State Department to hire additional staff to work on document production to provide to this committee. However, we continued to press the State Department for answers. Last month, we went so far as to put in writing 27 specific questions that the State Department needed to answer regarding its ability to produce documents to the committee and the use of the private email account by Secretary Clinton. These were simple questions that fell into three simple categories. These categories are: the State Department's initial approval, if any, of Secretary Clinton's email server arrangement; the State Department's knowledge about this email server arrangement, its attempt to retrieve her email, and the lack of candor by the Department towards the committee about this, despite the committee's persistent requests for these emails; and number 3, details of the Department's review of her emails to ensure the Department is properly marshaling resources to respond to our requests. Yet here we are, more than 1 month later, and the Department hasn't even been able to answer a single one of the 27 questions in writing. In addition, we have attempted on multiple occasions to direct the Department toward specific key documents that we are after. We have prioritized our subpoena from 10 names down to 4 names, and then again down to 3 names. We have prioritized dates of documents from 2 years, down to 1 year, down to 3 months. But again, here we are, 2\1/2\ months after we issued a subpoena and 6 months after we first sent the letter, and the Department has still not produced any of these priority documents. First, we moved a foot, then we moved a yard, and now we have moved our position one mile, but the State Department has not budged 1 inch. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to show a little chart that shows the noncompliance that the State Department has done so far: On 11/18 of 2014: The committee requests from the Secretary 10 senior officials' documents and emails--response, nothing. On 12/17, we got a response: Let's meet. No documents produced. 2/13/2015: State produced Clinton emails acquired from her attorney. 3/4/2015: We subpoenaed the documents and emails of the 10 senior officials. The State Department response: Let's meet. No documents produced. 3/26/2015: Three outstanding requests, ARB documents, 10 senior official documents and emails and server questions. 4/10: Briefing on document retention policies and procedures. No documents produced. 4/14: Compliance needed on both subpoenas. 4/15: Part of ARB documents produced 2 years after requested. 4/18: Two subpoenas outstanding. Full ARB compliance and documents. Emails of 10 senior officials. 4/22: Subpoenas outstanding for full ARB compliance and documents and emails of 10 senior officials. State response: Just beginning to assess volume of emails. No documents produced. 4/24/2015: Response, second part of ARB documents produced 2 years after requested. 4/27/2015: Reminder of priority of 10 senior officials. 4/29: Response: Estimate given for volume of emails for 2 of the 10 senior officials. No documents produced. 5/4/2015: Lack of compliance on document request is unacceptable. Response from the State Department: State responds but fails to identify any steps taken to produce documents. No documents produced. Mr. Speaker, we have done everything we know to do to get these documents so we can finish this investigation. I don't know that anybody has any more right to know what has gone on than the American people and especially those families of those four great Americans that lost their lives. The only thing holding us up from getting a definitive report of those actions before, during, and after those attacks is this executive branch and their Department of State. We are begging them. And as we have said before, we have moved an inch, we have moved a foot, we have moved a yard, we have moved a mile, and they have not moved one iota. So our request to them is to listen, to give us the documents and let us finish this report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to recognize an act of great kindness by one of my constituents, Shane Fenley. Shane lives in Griffin, Georgia and has been a UPS employee since 1999. It was at his job that Shane met Wayne Goree, they've been coworkers and friends ever since. The Goree family lives in Senoia and they have a 14 year old son, Justin. Justin has been sick off and on for some time, and was in need of a kidney transplant. When Shane heard that his friend's child was in need, he volunteered his own kidney. Shane went through the process of getting tested to see if he was a match. The results showed that he was a 90% match and the doctors knew that wasn't close enough. Next, Shane and Justin entered the Paired Donor Exchange program, where patients and donors are matched together. Because Shane wasn't a match for Justin, he gave his kidney to another person, who in return gave their kidney to Justin. Shane gave his kidney to a complete stranger, so that Justin could receive the kidney he so desperately needed. To give a child the gift of life is one of the most admirable acts a man can do. My nephew Todd, has also worked at UPS with Shane for many years. When describing Shane, Todd explained that he has always been willing to give the shirt off his back to any one in need. Now he will be known as the man who will literally give you the kidney out of his back and ask for nothing in return. Shane said the reason behind his donation was that he had 41 years of good health under his belt, and Justin, at the age of 14, had not had any. The selflessness and kindness that Shane displayed is lacking in our world today and we could use more people like Shane Fenley. Shane and Justin--It is an honor to represent you. I wish you both a speedy recovery and that you both live a long and happy life.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Chairman Nunes. Madam Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 1560, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act. The bill encourages and protects information sharing on cyber threats between private companies and the government and private companies. The bill safeguards personally identifiable information from being exchanged during the process by requiring private companies and the government to both make sure that no private information is exchanged. My home State of Georgia is home to many companies that deal with and secure sensitive data on a daily basis, and they are constantly looking for better ways to protect their networks. After recent cyber attacks against American businesses, I have spoken to industry leaders from Georgia and across the Nation about how we can make information sharing between the industries and the government stronger to better protect our Nation. Cyberterrorism is the new battlefield, and adapting to this warfare is crucial to eliminating these threats. By allowing American businesses to alert other companies and the government of specific threats, and only the threats, the Protecting Cyber Networks Act can help shut down the cybercriminals from stealing sensitive information or causing devastating damage to our networks. The Protecting Cyber Networks Act is a bipartisan step forward in protecting businesses and citizens from being the next victim of a cyber attack. This bill helps devastating cyber attacks from going unnoticed or only being shared months after the attack. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Nunes; Ranking Member Schiff; the ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Himes; and Mr. Ruppersberger for all the work that he has put into this, as well as former Chairman Rogers. I ask for a ``yea'' vote on this.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to honor my friend, lifetime Fayetteville resident and entrepreneur, Robert Jordan, who passed away on December 16, 2014. In 1952, Robert got his first job in retail at the age of 17 at the old Travis Hardware store in downtown Fayetteville. During his visits to various warehouses around town, Robert noticed items seemingly not for sale and placed off to the side. Eventually, he realized he could cheaply buy some of those discarded items, take them back to downtown Fayetteville, and sell them for a profit, while still offering his customers a good deal. By the early 1970s, Robert was giving full-time attention to buying and selling salvage merchandise and became well-known for his wheeling and dealing. If you wanted to know anything about the community in Fayette County or if you wanted to win an election, you went to see Robert Jordan. Robert was the guy to go to. Jordan Sales and Salvage became popular and profitable, and it is a fine example of what American entrepreneurship is all about. The way Robert ran his business and treated customers as his friends is a true statement of the compassion and faith involved in all the aspects of his daily life, especially the big love he had for his family. Joan and I send our condolences and prayers to the Jordan family, especially his wife of 60 years, Nellie, during this difficult time, and I am thankful to have met Robert and to have visited his store from time to time, but I am especially lucky to call him my friend. Robert, until we meet again, we miss you.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Phil Hogan, Josh Allen, James Weston Abbott, and Shea Lasseter for their work for Coweta-Fayette electric cooperative, located in my district, and Habersham electric cooperative. Coweta-Fayette initiated a partnership with Habersham for these gentlemen to travel to Costa Rica as volunteers for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association International Foundation. They helped construct an electric distribution system and worked alongside employees at Coopeguanacaste, the electric co-op in the town of Guanacaste. Their volunteer efforts included extending access to electricity for families in this community. Electricity is a critical element in improving the quality of life. It enables better health care, education, clean water, and other vital services. These men also shared safety and best construction practices with the Costa Rican cooperative employees. NRECA International has been active in rural electrification development in Costa Rica since 1963. The four electric cooperatives in Costa Rica serve approximately 750,000 folks. Thanks to these volunteers, more families in the world now have a chance for a better life. Thank you, Phil Hogan, Josh Allen, James Weston Abbott, and Shea Lasseter for your hard work and dedication.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5810. This bill would meet the cotton industry's growing need for a rural contract for cotton on the United States market. H.R. 5810 offers a simple technical fix that is needed due to the outdated 1916 Cotton Futures Act in terms of recognizing the global cotton trade. Recent discussions with USDA revealed that the 1916 Cotton Futures Act requires all cotton tendered on a cotton futures contract that is listed for trading on a U.S. exchange to be classified by the USDA. This is unrealistic, both logistically and financially, for non-U.S. cotton stored in warehouses outside the U.S. The industry's desire to trade and hedge a more modern contract requires a legislative tweak to the 1916 Cotton Futures Act to allow for any non-U.S. cotton tendered toward this U.S. contract to be inspected and classed by non-USDA personnel. Our proposal would not change the regulation of the contract, nor the current USDA classing requirement that U.S. cotton must be classified by the USDA personnel. Additionally, this bill also would not impact fees being generated by the USDA in the classing of U.S. cotton, tendered toward the existing cotton futures. Here is the bottom line. For the industry to be able to hedge the 2015 cotton crop, they will need a tweak to this futures act that they may petition the CFTC for the new world contract to be listed. If H.R. 5810 is not passed, a new contract would likely be listed at other exchanges in Europe or Singapore. With such unanimous support for this contract and solution, we hope this effort will be considered technical in nature and adopted quickly. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to honor one of Columbus, Georgia's finest leaders: Colonel Roy Plummer. Colonel Roy Plummer is retiring as a Director of Army Instruction for the Muscogee County School District JROTC where he is responsible for eight high school JROTC programs and four other county JROTC programs. From 1998 to the present he has dedicated his efforts toward creating a formidable district-level JROTC program which has grown from 400 cadets early in his tenure to a current operating enrollment of 1200 cadets. His partnership with the high school principals in moving JROTC forward in terms of relevancy and as an enhancer to each high school's vision has been extremely successful. Under Colonel Plummer's mentorship, the Muscogee County School District JROTC has earned GHSA State Rifle Championships, State-level awards in drill team and raider competitions, and honorable recognition in the annual JROTC Academic Bowl. Colonel Plummer is the Senior Pastor, Founder and CEO of Faith Tabernacle Community Church in Columbus since its inception in October 1994. He had finished his Active Duty Army career as the Chief of Chaplains of Fort Benning, Georgia prior to his retirement. He also currently serves as the Chaplain for Rotary International District 6900, Columbus, Georgia. He has served on numerous Boards as both a chairman and as a member: St. Francis Hospital Foundation, Columbus Hospice, United Way, Boy Scouts of America and the Columbus Chamber of Commerce are but a few. Colonel Plummer served as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling Graduate Studies at Columbus State University. He has earned a baccalaureate in Biblical Literature, Masters of Arts in Human Relations & Group Process and Guidance & Counseling, a Masters of Divinity in Pastoral Care, and a Doctorate in Divinity. This solid educational background and his benevolence inspired Colonel Plummer to create the Plummer Home for homeless and disenfranchised military veterans. A native of May Penn, Clarendon Parrish, Jamaica, Colonel Roy Plummer is a leader, pastor and friend to many; and the father to four daughters and seven grandchildren. He will share with you that ``The Lord is my light and my salvation: whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life, of whom shall I be afraid?'' To Roy Plummer and the endless contributions he has made to JROTC, the Muscogee County School District, and the Columbus community, we say ``Thanks a Million!''

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize Georgia Industries for the Blind as they celebrate National Disability Employment Awareness Month. Since the opening of its first manufacturing plant in 1949, Georgia Industries for the Blind has been creating, sustaining and improving employment opportunities for people who are blind. Georgia Industries for the Blind is part of the Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency and operates from its corporate headquarters in Bainbridge, Georgia. They have operations in three other facilities in Georgia that collectively employ over 100 blind individuals. They are proof that a workplace should be welcoming to the talents of all people and should be a critical part of everyone's efforts to build an inclusive community and a strong economy. Georgia Industries for the Blind has demonstrated the importance of raising awareness throughout the year about disability employment issues and to acknowledge the many and varied contributions of people with disabilities. It is with great pride that I recognize the contributions of Georgia Industries for the Blind to the personal and economic independence of blind individuals not only during National Disability Employment Awareness Month, but throughout the entire year.

Mr. WESTMORELAND

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I come before you today to honor one of Georgia's greatest: Mr. S. Truett Cathy. Truett Cathy was known across the globe as a successful businessman, author, and the ``inventor of the chicken sandwich.'' Mr. Cathy would also say, ``God created chicken; we created the chicken sandwich.'' But most importantly, he was a beloved great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and husband, above all else. His strong Christian faith could be seen in everything he did. It didn't matter if it was his company, his employees, or his generosity. It was all embodied in the love and good news of Jesus Christ. Truett's whole life was about giving hope and opportunity to those who had none. His dedication to helping children who have been abused and lost in the foster system reflected how important family values were to him and are only a fraction of what Truett, a man of such great integrity, was able to accomplish. Having come from nothing himself, he wanted every child to have the same chance at success and happiness as he did. Truett established the WinShape Foundation, which includes 11 long-term foster homes for 95 children. The WinShape Foundation helped not only children in bad circumstances, but for all periods of an individual's life. Truett also used his foundation as an opportunity to show you that faith in God can help you through your journey by providing opportunities for young adults to reconnect with their faith in the college program, offering retreats for married couples to renew their love in each other and in God, and creating our next generation's leaders through Christian wilderness camps to learn how to be a better leader and a part of a team. Truett believed building Christian leaders shouldn't be limited to our country's borders and took WinShape International through missionary trips and projects in over 43 countries. The generous work and humble spirit of Truett Cathy has touched more lives than we could ever imagine, and many successful individuals today have him to thank. Even in business, Truett Cathy treated his Chick-fil-A employees like family, endowing a scholarship foundation to help send them to college. Chick-fil-A has actually awarded more than $25 million in the last 35 years, done through $1,000 scholarships to 20 or 30 hardworking and deserving employees every year. Through all his work, Truett gave the most important gift of all to many underprivileged children and teens, and that is hope. You can never put a price on having someone believe in you and give you a chance at success by giving you your first job and teaching you the value of respect and hard work, and what the ethics of being employed was all about. Truett sums up his life mission and his work best himself: Nearly every moment of every day, we have the opportunity to give something to someone else, our time, our love, our resources, and I have always found more joy in giving when I did not expect anything in return. Having the opportunity to know Truett and his wonderful family has been a privilege, and I thank him for all he has done for the people of Georgia and across this Nation, for the hope and confidence that he has given so many young people to continue on and to fight for what they believe. Joan and I want to send our condolences and prayers to the Cathy family during this time of great sorrow for us all.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for doing this Special Order and for giving me an opportunity to come down and not only listen to him, but to share a little bit. Mr. Speaker, I think that we could have learned a lesson from Libya in the fact that we gave air support to the rebel groups that were overthrowing Qadhafi, who wanted Qadhafi gone. Was Qadhafi a good man? No, but his enemies were the same as our enemies, and he had really turned over his nuclear arms, his chemical weapons. I mean, he had stopped with his nuclear enhancement and had turned over his chemical weapons. Yet we saw fit that we would help the rebels because of humanitarian reasons and what was going on. You know, sometimes different sides get blamed for different things by just saying, ``Oh, we didn't do that. Somebody else did that.'' It was interesting that after Qadhafi was gone, all of a sudden, it becomes a wild west in Libya, and as a result of that, we had four brave Americans lose their lives in Benghazi because we were trying to play nice and be friends. Some people don't want to be our friend. In fact, as the gentleman from Texas was talking about, the real ambition of these jihadists, these radical Islamic groups, is to really have shari'a law control the world. They want all of us to be under the shari'a law, and that is what their goal is. In fact, if you look at ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, they want to go back in history and put together this caliphate that would include Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, and others. I mean, that is their goal. For people who might get confused with ISIS, ISIL, Daesh--there are a lot of different names that this group is called. I think ISIL is the best because I think that describes their intent of gaining this area that was once held. So I think we have to really think about this, as far as who we are going to train and arm. Do we know who these groups really are, as the gentleman from Texas read about the article that Patrick Poole had. We have had fighters that went to Syria. In fact, we just had our first American fighter that was fighting for ISIL. I believe his name was Mr. McCain. He lived in Minneapolis. He went back to San Diego and finally ended up in Syria. I think Josh Earnest used in one of these press briefings that these moderate forces had killed Mr. McCain and that they were fighting both ISIL and Assad. Now, the interesting thing about this moderate opposition group that killed Mr. McCain is that they killed other ISIL fighters too. They beheaded six of them. Now, I don't know how moderate that is, but according to American standards, that is not moderate. So I think we really have to give some close scrutiny to these folks that we are going to arm, that we are going to give different weapons. We really don't have a list of what those weapons would be yet. We are going to let the military train them. We trained the Iraqi military, their police, their defense force for, what, 7 years, I guess, or longer; and then at the first sight of combat, they left the American equipment that they had been given and fled. So I don't know what kind of training we are going to give these moderate groups, but I know we haven't got 7 years to stop ISIL. So I agree with my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), that I wish the President had used some different words rather than ``degrade.'' Maybe ``destroy''--maybe ``defeat'' would have been a great word to use, that we want to defeat them. If you read open source reports, there are 10,000, and then you hear, ``Well, now there are 15,000.'' Then we have got people in the government saying, ``Well, they could be up to 30,000. We don't know how many there are.'' I promise you, whether it was 30,000 or 50,000, we have got the greatest military in the world, and we could have controlled that situation if we just had the fortitude and the guts to do it, but because of the indecisiveness of this President, this thing has festered. If we had gone into Syria originally--or at least armed the opposition forces then--we actually knew who they were because they were a small group. There is probably over 100 different opposition forces, and as the gentleman said, they are fighting both Assad and ISIL. Now, to me, it is really confusing over there about who is fighting whom. If you look at Hamas and the Lebanese Army teaming up with them in Arsal to drive out the rebels that Assad had driven into Lebanon, it is very confusing about who is on whose side. We need to be particularly aware of that and make sure that we have a vetting process--if it is even possible--that we have a vetting process to make sure that these people are worthy of getting assistance from the American taxpayer.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So there were four of us in a 12-by-12 and two FBI agents and several boxes of paperwork, and they were nice enough to bring one copy so we could share. The FBI is the greatest. I mean, they are great crime fighters. They do great investigative work. I think it was probably under great political pressure that they purged these documents to take those words out of it. Like you said, even the 9/11 Commission did that. I want to go back to what you said about our allies and indecisiveness, if I could. Louie, we look at what is going on in the country and we all talk to small business people every day, and they go: You know what? We are not going to expand our business. We are not going to grow because we don't know what our health insurance is going to be; we don't know what our energy cost is going to be; we don't know what the regulations are going to be. So it is kind of a stalemate. I think that is the way our allies look at us. They don't know what our next move is. So, with all this uncertainty, there are different elements that are coming in and filling that void in us being the world leader--Russia being one of them, coming in to fill that void. People like to know that there is a leader somewhere that they can follow. I just don't think our allies in this world have seen that. Now we have actually got Germany and France and others leading different parts of these charges where America should have been out in front of it. I know our time is just about up. I want to thank my friend from Texas for allowing me to share with him. I look forward to doing some more of the Special Orders with him and making sure we can get the truth out.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, when the five of us went in that 12-by-12 room----

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, there was one more Member, I know, Trent.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, and you should. People claim it is all Bush's fault or that it was all the prior administration's fault that this happened. By the withdrawal of our troops--because I am telling you, I think President Bush laid it out pretty clear in 2007, when he made that speech about how a lot of people in Washington were clamoring about getting our troops out, and he said, ``We are not going to get our troops out until our ground commanders in Iraq tell us that we are ready to get our troops out.'' He points out the dangers of that, and that is exactly what happened. I think if this administration had understood that and had actually listened to the former President, who had been involved in all the things that had gone on recently in the Middle East, then they would have been persistent enough to persuade Maliki to allow for some agreement. Now, you know, I don't understand all the politics that have gone into this, but I think last night he authorized another 475 sneakers on the ground, and I think there was already roughly, what, 900-and- something over there. So we have a lot of guys over there, but we don't know what they are doing, and I don't know that they know what they are doing. What are the rules of engagement? Are they carrying weapons? Are they carrying notebooks, iPads? What are they doing? I mean, these are some of the most well-trained people that we have in our military. These are valuable assets to us that are over there, and just from the reports I read, I don't see that they really have any operational plan that they are going with. So that has got to be really confusing, I would think, if I was over there, as to what the rules of engagement were and, you know, if I was going to be sent out as an adviser or as protection, security forces for the Americans that are there, Erbil or Baghdad or wherever they are, so I think it is confusing to them too. I think that that is the reason, as you mentioned in one of your speeches today that I heard, about the resolution, so we can actually define what we think and what our committees think would be a good military plan for going in and what the expectation was of any forces that we have over there, whether it is air or some of these boots on the ground. Let's clarify that and make that a separate vote.