Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 27, the Settlement Agreement Information Database Act. Transparency and public participation are vital to ensure the public's continued trust in our government. Increasingly, Federal agencies are using legally binding settlement agreements to resolve litigation without going through lengthy public trials.

However, it is impossible for Congress and the public to determine the comprehensive impact of these settlement agreements on the State and local governments and private sector entities, which must continue to follow the mandated requirements. Such secret negotiations and agreements essentially prevent the public from participating in important policy decisions.

The burden of Federal settlement agreements can be difficult to see and understand, but State and local governments, industry stakeholders, and taxpayers can be directly affected by the settlements for years, and yet they are unable to provide input. This legislation seeks to correct that problem.

The Settlement Agreement Information Database Act, or SAID Act, requires Federal agencies to submit information regarding consent decrees and settlement agreements to a public electronic database. This public resource, to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget, would include dates, payments, attorney fees awards, and a list of State and local governments and entities impacted by the settlement.

Currently, agencies release information about settlements at their discretion and will only publicize the facts that reflect favorably upon the agency. Furthermore, the terms of settlement agreements are often deemed confidential.

Under the requirements of the SAID Act, if the agency believes that the information regarding an agreement should remain confidential, the agency head must publish an explanation of why it is confidential. This will increase the transparency of the Federal Government and shine a much-needed light on settlement agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Representatives Jim Cooper, Gerry Connolly, and Van Taylor, for supporting this important legislation. I am happy we could expedite its consideration again in the House after passing this bill unanimously in the 116th Congress. I thank the chairman for bringing this bill and making it part of this first legislative day package.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can continue to find bipartisan ways to increase transparency of the Federal Government. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call No. 439.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Special Agent Michael Williams for his 32 years of dedicated service to Alabama as a member of the United States Secret Service. He concludes his distinguished career as the Special Agent in Charge of the U.S. Secret Service Birmingham Field Office, where he has had executive oversight over operations in Alabama and Mississippi since 2016.

Special Agent Williams is a native of Birmingham and a graduate of the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He joined the Secret Service in 1985 and over the span of his career has been recognized for investigative excellence, including receiving the Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award.

In 1996, he was assigned to the Presidential Protective Division in Washington, D.C. where he protected President William J. Clinton and President George W. Bush. He was promoted to a Supervisory Special Agent assigned to the Protective Intelligence Division in 2001.

Special Agent Williams was able to come home in 2003, when he was promoted to Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Birmingham Field Office.

He returned to Washington, D.C. in 2005 where he served as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Presidential Protective Division. In October 2008, he was promoted to the Special Agent in Charge of the Columbia, South Carolina Field Office.

In January 2013, he once again found his way to D.C. when he was promoted into the Senior Executive Service where he served as the Special Agent in Charge of the Protective Intelligence and Assessment Division. In this capacity, he had executive oversight for protective intelligence, threat assessments and the Secret Service behavioral analysis program. In 2015, he was promoted to the position of Deputy Assistant Director in the Secret Service Office of Protective Operations. He ensured that the President, the First Lady and all protected persons, places and events received the highest level of security based on threats and vulnerabilities.

Throughout his career, Special Agent Williams has also served the community volunteering for a number of organizations, including the Big Brother program, Boys/Girls Club and Crime Stoppers of Metro Alabama. He is a member of Kappa Alpha Phi fraternity and received UAB's Outstanding Alumni Award. He is married to Angela Bryant-Williams and they have a son, Bryant Michael Williams.

I am grateful to Special Agent Williams for his 32 years of service to this country and wish him well in retirement.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, who is also a good friend, for the work he is doing on this, trying to bring some transparency to what is really going on here.

There are numerous reasons that mandating paper ballots isn't workable. They are susceptible to fraud; they are inefficient; and they are antiquated. I have seen, over the years, where the joke was ``one man, one vote,'' where it was ``one suitcase, one vote,'' with people bringing in paper ballots. We have seen a situation around the country now where that is still a bit of a problem.

For argument's sake, though, let's just say that paper ballots were foolproof and didn't come with their own set of problems or security concerns. I would still be concerned about the impact this bill would have on the majority of our States.

The mandate, in and of itself, is troubling. Twenty-nine out of our 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, would have to completely revamp their current election systems. This is both costly and time- intensive. There is nearly zero chance this can be adopted by the 2020 elections. The funding in the bill makes it clear that they realize this is not enough money to pay for this and, if it is not, it would be on a pro rata share. That means it is an unfunded mandate in violation of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.

It is easy for Federal lawmakers here in D.C. to gloss over the impact this Federal mandate would have, but the numbers don't lie. Only 18 States currently use a paper-only voting system, as the bill would mandate. Not to mention, this bill would also impact those 18 States, including my home State of Alabama.

Just a few days ago, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing on ``Election Security: Voting Technology Vulnerabilities,'' where Oklahoma's Secretary of the State Election Board Ziriax pointed out that this bill would require the use of recycled paper, which would be impossible to use with Oklahoma's current paper ballot system because the fibers found in recycled paper would cause repeated false readings.

While this may seem like a small or silly detail, this is just one example of the great impact this bill will have on all States, with many considerations that have yet to be vetted properly.

My colleagues on the other side continue to offer radical and unworkable policies to revamp our election system. Security risks do exist within our ballot boxes, but this bill is not the answer. This bill will just add to the existing risks, and I cannot support it.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table H.R. 3401, with the Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment. This bipartisan bill passed the Senate with 84 votes and could be sent to the President's desk for his signature today.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the section that allows payments to go towards the Paris climate agreement. Most importantly, it would allow President Trump to follow through on his plan to withdraw from the agreement.

Just a few months ago, it was reported that the U.S. economy exceeded analysts' predictions and grew at over 3 percent in the first quarter of this year.

In October of last year, unemployment had a mere 50-year low, and wages are going up. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported there are 7.4 million jobs available.

Mr. Chair, now those on the other side of the aisle want to put at risk that growth and enforce policies that will do nothing to stop climate change.

What would staying in the agreement lead to?

The Heritage Foundation has modeled the policies that would be required to meet the Obama administration's Paris commitments and found that by 2035 there would be an overall loss of nearly 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing, an average total income lost of more than $20,000 for a family of four, an aggregate GDP loss of over $2.5 trillion, and an increase in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.

My amendment would allow the United States to stay out of this unrealistic and overbearing agreement. I urge the Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the ranking member on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the United States has led the world in reducing carbon emissions, and I would also like to point out that even former Secretary of State John Kerry, in 2015, stated, if we somehow eliminated all domestic greenhouse gas emissions--guess what--it still wouldn't be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

I would also like to point out that, in a hearing before the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, I asked the Democrat witnesses, including an author and editor of the International Panel on Climate Change, if the United States completely eliminated all of its carbon emissions, would it stop climate change, and their answer was it would not.

We have led the world in reducing carbon emissions without harming our economy, and it makes no sense scientifically or from an engineering perspective to engage in destroying our own economy when the rest of the world and, particularly, China and other emerging economies are not doing their part to reduce their carbon emissions.

I want to emphasize the fact that eliminating our carbon emissions will not stop climate change. Sound science, technology, and sound engineering will do more to mitigate and adapt than anything else you can do.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, today is the 100th year anniversary of the United States House of Representatives approving the resolution for the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. I have looked forward to this day literally since my first day in Congress because it holds very special meaning for my wife's family.

Prior to the 1920 election, sample ballots were distributed in Boston. My wife Ann's great-great-grandmother, Abby Mayhew Cushing, received a sample ballot that she used to prepare for that election. After voting that day she wrote the following note on the back side of the sample ballot, ``November 2, 1920 Cast my first vote for President of these United States.''

Reading those words gives a sense of the immense pride that Ms. Cushing felt, a sincere sense of patriotism at the opportunity to participate in the selection of the leaders who would guide as she wrote, ``these United States.''

These United States . . . even though women had been denied the right to vote since the beginning of our nation, there was no sense of resentment from Ms. Cushing, only a sense of great pride that comes from a genuine love of country.

To be totally transparent, I should include the rest of what she wrote on the back of her sample ballot. She wrote, ``Straight Republican ticket. Smashing victory for Harding and Coolidge. Abby Mayhew Cushing Age 67''

Almost three years later she added this note: ``President Harding died very suddenly August 2nd 1923 in California. Burial in Marion, Ohio, Friday August 10th.''

My wife and her family have held on to this treasured piece of American history, with Ms. Cushing's simple yet inspiring words written on the back, for almost 100 years as a reminder of how far our nation has come. It is with great pride and honor that I share them with this Congress on this 100th anniversary of the passage of the House resolution to give the women of America the right to vote.

Madam Speaker, this year is the 100th year anniversary of the United States House of Representatives approving the resolution for the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. I have looked forward to this day literally since my first day in Congress because it holds very special meaning for my wife's family.

Prior to the 1920 election, sample ballots were distributed in Boston. My wife Ann's great-grandmother, Abby Mayhew Cushing, received a sample ballot that she used to prepare for that election. After voting that day she wrote the following note on the back side of the sample ballot, ``November 2, 1920 Cast my first vote for President of these United States.''

Reading those words gives a sense of the immense pride that Ms. Cushing felt, a sincere sense of patriotism at the opportunity to participate in the selection of the leaders who would guide as she wrote, ``these United States.''

These United States . . . even though women had been denied the right to vote since the beginning of our nation, there was no sense of resentment from Ms. Cushing, only a sense of great pride that comes from a genuine love of country.

To be totally transparent, I should include the rest of what she wrote on the back of her sample ballot. She wrote, ``Straight Republican ticket. Smashing victory for Harding and Coolidge. Abby Mayhew Cushing Age 67.''

Almost three years later she added this note: ``President Harding died very suddenly August 2nd 1923 in California. Burial in Marion, Ohio, Friday August 10th.''

My wife and her family have held on to this treasured piece of American history, with Ms. Cushing's simple yet inspiring words written on the back, for almost 100 years as a reminder of how far our nation has come. It is with great pride and honor that I share them with this Congress on this 100th anniversary of the passage of the House resolution to give the women of America the right to vote.

Madam Speaker, almost from the day that I have been elected to Congress, I have looked forward to the opportunity to honor my wife's great-grandmother.

She was able to vote in the 1920 election. Prior to that election, in Boston, they distributed sample ballots. This document that I have with me today has been in my wife's family for almost 100 years. On the back of the document, Miss Abby Mayhew Cushing wrote this note: ``November 2, 1920. Cast my first vote for President of these United States.''

You can feel the pride and the patriotism in those words that she experienced for the first time. Abby Mayhew Cushing was 67 years old.

With all due respect to my Democrat colleagues, she wrote: ``Voted straight Republican ticket. Smashing victory for Harding and Coolidge.'' Then she added this: ``President Harding died very suddenly August 2, 1923, in California. Burial in Marion, Ohio, Friday, August 10.''

This is, for the Cushing family, a historic document that celebrates the patriotism of American women earning the right to vote.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 is yet another case of Democrats attempting a power grab from the States with no regard for the Constitution and States' powers. The bill completely disregards the fact that most States have successfully adopted their own process for a fair and honest and constitutional election.

Thirty-eight States, including my home State of Alabama, have already implemented some type of online voter registration, most with safeguards to protect against fraud. Each State is different and has unique circumstances and challenges that only the State and local legislators can effectively address.

For instance, in Alabama, where we require voter identification, our election officials recognize the rural nature of the State and have taken steps to ensure that every person has a form of ID, which is required to vote.

Alabama accepts seven different types of ID, including a student or employee ID. They can get a voter ID card for free. The State even goes so far as to have a mobile ID unit that will pick people up and take them to an ID center at no expense.

That is why a Federal judge recently threw out a lawsuit against the ID law because, in the judge's words: There is no person who is qualified to register to vote who cannot get a photo ID.

One of the most important requirements for eligibility to vote is citizenship. H.R. 1 requires States to maintain online voter registration with no safeguards. They can simply upload an electronic signature without any validation through a DMV database.

Many officials from States that have implemented online voter registration will tell you that a huge obstacle is cybersecurity. Any time parts of the process are connected to the internet, it opens it up to hacking attempts.

My Democratic colleagues have spent the better part of 2 years alleging there was Russian influence on the 2016 election. Now they want to invite China to the party? What about Iran and North Korea?

Just this week, FBI Director Wray was asked if China's digital threat was overblown. He responded: There is nothing like it.

Voter fraud and registration fraud are real threats to elections.

Mr. Chairman, the Texas Attorney General recently indicted four people as part of a vote fraud ring funded by the Texas Democratic Party. Under the new automatic registration scheme in California, they admitted to registering 25,000 ineligible voters, including noncitizens. This bill even allows felons to register to vote, even those who are felons for voter fraud.

Each State is unique, with their own circumstances and challenges. Elections are a State matter, not a Federal matter. We should continue to allow the States to act on their own and implement policies that work best for their State rather than cede the fundamental base of our liberty: our right to choose our leaders in honest and fair elections.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, if this unanimous consent request, which would prevent the killing of a living child, cannot be entertained, I wonder what might be.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague from North Carolina in congratulating the gentlewoman from California on passing her first bill. I now know what that broad smile was about when the ``yeas'' were announced.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government's duty to serve the public interest relies on transparency and accountability to its citizens; however, since the 1970s, Federal agencies have increasingly chosen to avoid a public trial and settle litigation behind closed doors. The resulting consent decrees and settlement agreements can mandate terms beyond the scope of the original violation of Federal law and can lead to higher costs than a trial.

These agreements are nearly impossible to modify or vacate, and in many cases can remain in place for decades. In one instance in New York City, their special education program has been under a consent decree since 1972.

This process has influenced a range of public policies across governmental programs in States, counties, and cities, with elected officials inheriting the burden with little knowledge of the mandates or cost.

In Alabama, for instance, when former Member of Congress Governor Bob Riley was elected Governor of Alabama, he was going over the budget and saw the amount for legal fees and asked what it was for. He was informed of the number of consent decrees that the State was under and they were paying out these legal fees, and it was an enormous amount.

States, municipalities, industry, stakeholders, and taxpayers are often directly affected by the terms of the agreements but are prevented from participating in the negotiations. In some cases, the settlements are declared to be confidential and the contents sealed, without providing any explanation.

Unfortunately, there is no uniform standard for recordkeeping across Federal agencies. While some agencies have issued directives to streamline and publish this information, most of the public's access to Federal settlement agreement information is primarily issued, as my colleague from North Carolina pointed out, in the form of a press release. It is, therefore, impossible for the public to determine the comprehensive costs and outcomes of these settlement agreements.

This lack of transparency leaves elected officials, agency officials, and the public in the dark about the consent decrees that can impact them. Oftentimes, newly elected officials, as I said, from Governors to attorneys general to mayors are sworn in and inherit substantial legal obligations they were completely unaware of before they took office.

The Settlement Agreement Information Database Act will address this problem. The bill establishes a centralized and electronic database of settlement agreements entered into by Federal agencies. Basic information about the settlement agreements already collected by Federal agencies, such as payments and dates, will be available to the public online through this database.

H.R. 995 provides long overdue transparency and accountability and standards to the Federal settlement agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hill), for their support on this bill, and I urge my other colleagues to support this bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman just acknowledged that I have no social life, but that is fine.

I want to talk a little bit about healthcare. Here is a fact that my Democratic colleagues were desperately trying to keep from the public. Not only do the Republicans support providing health insurance coverage for those with preexisting conditions, but we actually passed legislation that did just that with the American Health Care Act of 2017.

It included an amendment that Representative David Schweikert of Arizona and I introduced that ensured that anyone with a preexisting condition could purchase health insurance. The Palmer-Schweikert amendment established a risk-sharing plan that would allow any individual with a preexisting condition to purchase insurance at the same price as a healthy individual.

It was actually modeled after a successful State-based program in the State of Maine. Instead of billions of dollars being paid out by the Federal Government in bailouts for health insurance companies, our plan, funded by having the majority of the premiums paid for those with preexisting conditions, transferred into a fund, a risk-sharing fund.

This represents an alternative approach to ObamaCare's guaranteed issue provision, which priced everyone as sick, resulting in far higher premiums. As a matter of fact, the premiums got so high that insurance companies literally began pulling out of whole States.

What our amendment did was, if someone had a preexisting condition, they would come to an insurance company, fill out a health survey, mark down if they had had a heart attack or cancer. The insurance company would sell them insurance at the same price as anybody else. But when they paid their premiums, 90 percent of the premiums would go into this risk-sharing agreement.

The insurance company would only keep 10 percent. Now, if the person, the individual became very sick, if it became very expensive, the insurance company would pay the first $7,500 and then 10 percent of the next $25,000, so the most that they were out was $10,000. The risk- sharing plan would pick up the balance and reimburse the providers at the same rate as Medicare.

The way this worked was not only did the premiums go into the risk- sharing plan, 90 percent of the premiums, but the rest of us would pay anywhere from $5 to $10 a month on our premiums. That would go into the risk-sharing plan, and our amendment was backed up with $38 billion.

What this allowed us to do was create a situation where the actuaries could actually be more predictive in what the cost would be; and, as a result, it lowered premiums for everyone. So not only did it cover people with preexisting conditions, but everyone else's premiums came down.

As a matter of fact, in that 20- to 30-year-old age group, it came down 41 percent; 30 to 40 years old came down 33 percent; 40 to 50, 25 percent; 50 to 60, 11.6 percent; and that pre-Medicare 60 to 65 came down 5.9 percent. So what we were doing was trying to repair the American healthcare system, doing it in a way that made sense for people.

Not only that, we have other options that we want to present. For instance, one of the biggest uninsured populations is young people. It doesn't make sense to spend the amount of money you have to spend to pay your premiums when a lot of those folks are earning lower wages.

So we want to set up a plan where you could buy short-term insurance, buy what you need, what you can afford for that time in your life, and it would be for 1 year. Depending on what you bought, your premiums could come down 85 percent. If you needed to extend it, you could extend it for another 3 years. That is transition insurance.

In addition to that, the vast majority of people in America who have a job work for a small business, and small businesses aren't part of a larger group. So we wanted to set up association group plans so that if you are a small business and your city set up an association group plan, you could be in that. Or if you are a farmer, you could be a member of an association group plan that the Farm Bureau established, and premiums there are projected to come down by as much as 50 percent.

The Republicans have the best ideas for repairing our healthcare system, making it affordable, and keeping our promise, a promise that was broken repeatedly: If you like your doctor, you

can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance, you can keep your doctor.

It is not just about the cost. It is about improving outcomes and helping people live better and healthier.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to call upon this body to fulfill its duty to protect the American people.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to claim that strengthening border security is about separating families or preventing them from immigrating to the U.S. In reality, it is about protecting the American people by stopping the flow of dangerous individuals across the southern border.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen has confirmed that ISIS has produced written materials that encourage ISIS followers to cross our Southwest border, given the loopholes that they are also aware of, and that, on average, her department now blocks 10 known or suspected terrorists a day from traveling to or attempting to enter the United States.

The four individuals shown here, one of whom had been previously identified and flagged for insurgency/terrorism, were stopped in Panama while trying to make their way to the U.S. Thanks to a fortunate tip and coordination between U.S. and Panamanian law enforcement, these individuals were stopped.

This should be alarming to every American, especially concerning the dangerous individuals we may have missed and will continue to miss due to our lack of robust border security.

I am proud of the job our Border Patrol and law enforcement officers are doing to protect their country, and I urge my colleagues to do our duty to protect the American people from dangerous individuals by taking border security seriously and fully funding the President's proposal for border security.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds from being used to carry out the District of Columbia's Health Insurance Requirement Amendment Act of 2018. This is essentially the District's version of ObamaCare's individual mandate with a few important and troubling distinctions.

The mandate requires that all residents of the District of Columbia purchase government-sanctioned health insurance or pay what the District calls a ``shared responsibility payment.''

However, the mandate goes even further by allowing D.C. authorities to place liens on, seize, and sell the property of their residents if they are unwilling or unable to pay the tax penalty.

Let me repeat. If a D.C. resident chooses not to purchase the government-sanctioned health insurance plan or purchases health insurance that doesn't meet the District of Columbia's preferences, they will now have the authority to impose a tax penalty or seize and sell that person's assets.

But it gets worse.

Every plan available through the D.C. Health Link covers elective abortion, which means that the mandate forces individuals who don't wish to purchase this coverage to choose between violating their conscience and facing a tax penalty or, even worse, having their property seized.

I am sure you will hear objections to Congress meddling in District of Columbia affairs, but I will remind those objectors that Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution vests Congress, not the D.C. City Council, with the authority to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever regarding the District.

When the District of Columbia makes it a priority to force the residents to buy insurance coverage they neither want nor need, it is incumbent upon Congress to exercise their constitutional authority and prohibit the use of funds to carry out this policy.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the other distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows and Mr. Walker, for their support of this amendment. And I would just like to point out, as Mr. Meadows was pointing out, this is really about defending rights.

This amendment prohibits the District of Columbia Council from imposing on individual property rights. It denies people the option to buy less expensive health insurance and insurance that they want and need.

I would like to also point out that in ObamaCare, even there, there was no force imposed on people to buy health insurance. They could pay the penalty, or they could apply for a waiver with the IRS and, literally, millions did that. At no time did ObamaCare pose a threat to people's property rights, as this amendment does.

So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia to protect their property rights and support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.