Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable individual from my home district, Mr. Ernest Walls of Monroe, a 93-year-old World War II veteran who was recently inducted into the Georgia Military Veterans Hall of Fame.

Private First Class Walls joined the U.S. Army in the midst of World War II at the age of 18. In a display of incredible valor, under the 22nd Infantry Unit, he was part of the wave of troops to storm Utah Beach, the westernmost beach of the five landing areas of the Normandy invasion, where they fought their way across a killing zone without hesitation. He was later wounded and captured by the Germans. He spent a year as a prisoner of war.

When asked about his heroic action, he said: ``Only the grace of God helped us win the war, and America came back as the most blessed and most powerful Nation on Earth.''

Due to an unfortunate clerical error, it took Mr. Wells nearly 55 years to receive his POW status and full benefits. Thankfully, since then, he has been rightfully awarded the Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, French Legion of Honor, and Prisoner of War Medal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Private Wells and to extend our personal and sincere appreciation to him, as well as all our men and women in uniform. We, as a nation, are forever grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2331) to require a new or updated Federal website that is intended for use by the public to be mobile friendly, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2331, introduced by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Kelly). The bill requires all Federal agencies to ensure any Federal Government website intended for use by the public is mobile friendly. Services offered by the Federal Government should be effective but also accessible to the public. Agency websites are one of the most important tools for taxpayers to observe services and information from the government.

The U.S. Government runs more than 6,000 websites on over 400 domains. One recent study estimated that approximately 40 percent of government websites either are not accessible or are difficult to access on a phone, yet nearly 80 percent of Americans own a smartphone, and at least 1 in 10 American adults rely exclusively on a smartphone for access to the internet, according to a Pew survey. The data clearly points to the utility of making all government websites mobile friendly.

Another study found that more people accessed the internet on their mobile devices than a desktop computer for the first time last year. It is clear that Federal agencies must emphasize mobile accessibility to effectively serve the American people. The Connected Government Act will require agencies to do just that.

This bill requires Federal agencies to ensure their websites are mobile friendly during the course of creating new websites or updating existing ones. A mobile-friendly government is a necessary step in the modernization of the government's IT infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois, for her work in sponsoring this bill. I am proud also to support this bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her great work on this bill, I urge adoption of it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3071) to require executive agencies to consider equipment rental in any cost-effectiveness analysis for equipment acquisition, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3071, introduced by my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Carter), and which I have cosponsored.

The Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017 would require the government to consider renting equipment over buying or leasing that equipment. The Government Accountability Office reported that agencies annually spend an average of more than $200 billion on purchasing or leasing equipment, with purchasing accounting for almost all of that spending.

The Federal Acquisition Savings Act of 2017 provides an opportunity to save money when obtaining equipment. The current rules encourage agencies to consider the most cost-effective way to obtain equipment, but only between purchasing or leasing. Renting is not an option.

H.R. 3071 requires agencies to consider renting equipment as a cost- saving measure over purchasing or leasing. The bill also directs that the Federal Acquisition Regulation be revised to implement this policy. Renting equipment can provide a more cost-effective and flexible alternative to buying or leasing.

When purchasing equipment, the purchaser makes a long-term investment and assumes the total cost of ownership for that equipment. However, some short-term needs can be met without assuming the cost of purchasing and maintaining equipment. Leasing or renting are options in such cases. Leasing should be considered, but, depending on an agency's needs, leasing may not be the best low-cost option. Typically, leases involve defined leasing periods and are specific to a single piece of equipment.

In addition, leasing may require a large upfront outlay of capital, and, under a lease, the government is generally responsible for the cost of maintenance, insurance, and storage of the equipment. Alternatively, rental for a temporary period with no fixed duration may fit the need and provide a more flexible option.

Renting equipment may be cost-effective because rental agreements typically cover costs such as storage, maintenance, insurance, transport, and licensing.

Other State and local governments have used the equipment rental option with great success, but the Federal Government has not widely adopted this low-cost option. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation reported saving $10.8 million due to a rental program. They reported renting more than 1,200 pieces of equipment at a cost of $18.9 million and purchasing 931 assets costing more than $40 million.

The Mississippi Department of Transportation commissioned a study on their equipment management processes and systems, and that study found that renting equipment, such as bulldozers and motor graders, to supplement their fleet was the most cost-effective option. In fact, that study found that Mississippi could realize over $13,000 in annual cost savings and $180,000 in lifecycle cost savings per bulldozer unit.

H.R. 3071 presents an opportunity to realize cost savings in obtaining equipment by directing agencies to consider the rental option.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Buddy Carter for his leadership on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this bill, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3739) to amend the Act of August 25, 1958, commonly known as the ``Former Presidents Act of 1958'', with respect to the monetary allowance payable to a former President, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 3739, a bill I introduced to limit the allowances paid to former Presidents.

Congress passed the Former Presidents Act of 1958 to maintain the dignity of the Office of the President and assist former Presidents who did not have sufficient financial resources. It is a noble purpose, but times have changed. When the Former Presidents Act was passed, Herbert Hoover and Harry Truman were the only two former living Presidents. Unlike the more recent former Presidents, they did not earn millions of dollars from speaking fees and book deals after leaving office.

For example, President Clinton earned more than $100 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2013. President George W. Bush received $10 million for his book deal. In April 2017, President Obama spoke at a Wall Street firm for a fee of $400,000, and he and the former First Lady also reportedly signed a joint book deal worth over $65 million.

It is a fact of the modern Presidency that these lucrative financial opportunities are available now as they were not to former Presidents. Because of these opportunities, it is no longer necessary to provide taxpayer-funded support to former Presidents in the same way as envisioned in 1958.

H.R. 3739 presents a fair way to reduce taxpayer support to those former Presidents who no longer need such assistance. Furthermore, with our Nation facing $20 trillion in debt, we must find ways to save taxpayer money, and our former Presidents will lead by example in cutting costs under this bill.

The Presidential Allowance Modernization Act reforms pensions and allowances provided to former Presidents and surviving spouses and reduces unnecessary costs to the taxpayer.

This bill sets a former President's pension at $200,000, compared to current law where the pension is linked to the Cabinet Secretary's pay level, currently at $204,700. Surviving spouses of former Presidents will be eligible for a pension of $100,000, a more realistic amount than the $20,000 pension available under current law.

Currently, former Presidents are also eligible for other benefits paid through annual appropriations. These include

office space and leases, furniture and supplies, and staff salaries. Such additional benefits provided to former Presidents totaled $2.84 million in fiscal year 2017 and $2.43 million the year before.

Instead, this bill will provide a $500,000 lump sum allowance for each eligible former President to cover such expenses. This allowance will be reduced dollar-for-dollar for any earned income in excess of $400,000. For example, a former President making $900,000 in earned income would not be eligible for the allowance.

For former Presidents eligible for the allowance, the allowance will decrease over time. Five years after the former President has left office, the allowance is reduced to $350,000, and then 10 years later, the allowance is reduced to $250,000.

In the 114th Congress, the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act of 2016 was passed, but it was not signed into law. Senator Joni Ernst and I have worked with other stakeholders to improve the bill in 2017. This 2017 bill advances the same principles of accountability and modernization as the 2016 legislation but makes some key changes.

First, the bill provides a 6-month period after the date of enactment before the bill takes effect to ensure current former Presidents have time to plan for the changes.

Second, the bill increases the allowance amount from $200,000 in the previous bill language to $500,000. However, as described earlier, this allowance decreases over time, but it is not entirely eliminated should a former President be eligible for the allowance.

The office of the former President is an important institution to support in a nominal way. We were all recently reminded of the importance of this institution by the joint effort of former Presidents to raise hurricane relief funds.

The third change made in this version of the bill is the pension and allowance are terminated 30 days after the death of a former President--instead of immediately upon death. This change was made to accommodate the work that must be done to wrap up the affairs of a former President.

Finally, I want to assure my colleagues that this bill does not impact funding for the security or protection of a former President.

Again, I want to thank Senator Ernst for her work on this bill in the previous years and this particular bill in 2017. It has been a real pleasure to work with her and her staff.

I want to acknowledge Members such as Mr. Cummings, Mr. Grothman, and the former chairman, Mr. Chaffetz, whose work on this bill last year positioned us to be successful this year. I also want to express my gratitude to the professional staff on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who have put in so many hours of work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill,

and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of one

of my constituents and an American hero, Corporal Virgil Hanks. Corporal Hanks passed away last week at the age of 96, just a few days before Veterans Day.

Corporal Hanks joined the United States Army Air Corps in 1942 and was honorably discharged from the military at the end of World War II following four years of service. In 2015, in his hometown of Social Circle, Georgia, I had the distinct honor of presenting Corporal Hanks with a certificate of Congressional Recognition and a World War II Victory Medal for his valuable and selfless contribution to our Nation's wartime efforts.

Virgil Hanks will be remembered as an incredibly kind and humble man, dedicated to his late wife, siblings, and children, whom he loved fiercely. His legacy of service survives to this day throughout Georgia's 10th Congressional District, and he will be buried at the Georgia National Cemetery with his other brothers and sisters in arms.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence to honor the life of Corporal Virgil Hanks, a hero who deserves the respect of all Americans and will be sorely missed by so many in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend from Arizona for holding this Special Order. What an incredibly important issue.

Over the past year, we have heard nearly on a daily basis accusations of what Russia tries to do to undermine the United States. I think most of my colleagues would agree that Russia's actions over the past 2 years, which include everything from cyber attacks to supporting Assad's bloody regime in Syria, all of it demonstrates that their intention is to disrupt the stability both of the United States and the entire world.

But here is the deal: none of this happened overnight. No one in Russia flipped a switch on their foreign policy and it suddenly changed from being friendly to the United States to trying to cause us harm.

The fact is the United States did not remain vigilant. Our foreign policy suffered. We ignored the fact that Russian interests and goals are not our interests and goals. Nothing demonstrates this more than the Uranium One case.

In 2010, the Committee on Foreign Investments of the United States approved a partial sale, as you have heard this evening, of a Canadian company to the Russian-owned nuclear giant Rosatom. We have heard about all of this. One-fifth of our uranium capacity gone.

In the United States, we have been long aware of the fact that the Russian Government's request is, among other things, to control the production of energy, both at home and in other nations, and then use that energy as a source of leverage during conflicts.

Furthermore, striking information has been uncovered that Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive evidence that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks, all, of course, in violation of the law.

Rather than bringing these charges up, however, the FBI kept this secret. They didn't tell anyone about it for 4 years. That is unacceptable. We need to know why the FBI didn't share this information. Why was this crucial information about Russia's actions in our nuclear energy sector not shared? This is absolutely unacceptable.

Then, as we have been hearing tonight, we have the cases where Russian officials spent millions of dollars to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable family foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State.

These are all extremely serious allegations, and it is absolutely our responsibility to investigate them. There was a fundamental conflict of interest here, and I think you would have to be blind not to recognize that. Our Secretary of State was making decisions that impacted the entire world while, at the same time, receiving massive amounts of money from foreign donations.

As the Russians assumed control of Uranium One, the company's chairman was giving tons of money to the Clinton Foundation. Of course, none of this was disclosed as it was supposed to be.

So from what we know, the decision to allow the Clinton Foundation to continue soliciting foreign donations was, at best, naive, if not criminal. This seems to be a pattern of the previous administration. It is absolute cluelessness and self-interest, at best, perhaps even worse than that. It is hardly surprising that Russia believed it could pull the wool over our eyes with impunity and increased its malicious behavior.

I look forward to this investigation going forward, and I thank my friend

from Arizona for having this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the gentleman's great leadership in this, and I am grateful to be able to speak on this issue of life.

There have been, as mentioned a few moments ago, some 300, plus or minus, bills sent to the Senate that we have labored here in the House and worked through, negotiated, duked it out, so to speak, gotten ideas on the table, worked it out, sent it over to the Senate, only to see them sit there and do nothing.

Right in the midst of all of that, at the heart of it all, are a couple of very important bills dealing with the issue of life, which is important to all of us. I firmly believe, and I know my colleagues do as well, that all human life at every stage of development is worthy of protection. I am deeply honored and proud of the fact that this House has passed a couple of extremely important bills in that regard.

As the gentleman from Colorado just mentioned, H.R. 7, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion, by our friend from New Jersey, Chris Smith, and H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, by Trent Franks of Arizona,

are fantastic bills. One basically says that the American taxpayer should not be footing the bill to end the life of unborn children. It has been sitting for over 200 days in the Senate without even a debate.

The other says that, after 20 weeks, when an unborn child is capable of feeling pain, we are not going abort that child in the midst of a period of time where pain is absolutely scientifically proven to be felt. Again, that bill is sitting across the way in the Senate Chamber, and they have not done anything about it whatsoever.

These are important bills. These bills affect lives. Every day that the Senate does nothing, lives are being lost.

The question is: Where is the Senate?

We all sit here and we wait and we wait and we wait. The time has come that the Senate has to take ownership of what the American people elected not only us, but the American people elected them to do, and that is the job, the task, the platform that we all ran on, and at the heart of that is the fight, the battle for life.

I am also proud of the fact that the House, in our appropriations package, defunded Planned Parenthood. This is a promise that we made the American people after the gruesome discovery of how Planned Parenthood was selling baby body parts. Again, we just recognize that life is a gift from God and it is precious and it is to be protected. It is an inalienable right that we as Members of Congress have the responsibility to defend those inalienable rights. Obviously, without the right to life, there, likewise, is no right to liberty, and certainly no right to the pursuit of happiness.

Again, the question is: Where is the Senate on these issues?

It is time that we join together. Again, I thank my friend for having this Special Order and calling on the Senate to deal with this 60-vote threshold that has become an enormous barrier, causing all of us to be dysfunctional in that which the American people sent us here to do.

Our conservative principles, as well as our whole Nation, rests upon us advancing these things that the American people sent us here to do, and at the heart of that is to defend life. I just join in calling on the Senate to deal with this 60-vote rule and move forward on the agenda that we are here to do.

Again, I just thank the gentleman for his kindness in allowing me to speak on this issue, which is important not only to me, but to all of us; and for his leadership on joining us in having a united voice, calling our colleagues down the hallway here to do the job that they were called on to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Nolan Watson, a Georgia resident and veteran of the United States Air Force, who joined our Heavenly Father earlier this year after battling kidney cancer for over a decade.

In 1966, Mr. Watson was one of the heroic men during the Cold War who was involved in the cleanup efforts after a B-52 bomber collided with a KC-135 tanker over Palomares, Spain, releasing four hydrogen bombs. After his service, Mr. Watson suffered from severe medical problems and was ultimately diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2002.

Nolan is survived by his lovely wife, Nona, who has been a fierce and devoted advocate for her husband, working tirelessly throughout the years to

garner the recognition these young men deserved for the sacrifices they made responding to this unfortunate disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stand with me and join me for a moment of silence to honor the life and legacy of Nolan Watson, a hero who deserves our respect and who will be sorely missed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Interior Subcommittee Chairman Calvert for their efforts on this legislation, and I thank them for the opportunity to speak today.

I am committed to pursuing a comprehensive all-of-the-above energy strategy, and I would like to take this time to engage in a colloquy on section 438 of this bill, pertaining to offshore wind development. As a representative from a coastal area, I want to ensure that all offshore energy development is pursued in a pragmatic manner.

Section 438 restricts funding for the Department of the Interior to administer offshore wind leases within 24 nautical miles off the coast of Maryland. This language hinders offshore wind development by imposing unprecedented and burdensome requirements on three existing leases.

Typically, offshore wind turbines are constructed roughly 12 nautical miles from the coastline, which is generally out of sight from shore. By doubling the setback, section 438 unreasonably restricts these projects and sets a poor policy precedent for future development.

Furthermore, modifying the terms and conditions of the leases violates the sanctity of the lease and creates considerable uncertainty for companies pursuing any offshore wind project.

It is critical that we establish regulatory and contractual certainty in all areas of natural resource development. America's offshore wind industry is in its infancy, and the policies and precedents that we set today will affect investment long into the future.

The language contained in section 438 is concerning for this reason, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Maryland in the future to find a more appropriate solution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Larry Jeff Eley, Sr., a friend and strong advocate for farmers, growers, and landowners in my home district. He passed away suddenly at the age of 71 on July 17.

He was well known in Greene County, Georgia, as a gentle giant and will be remembered for his love for his family and his tireless efforts as president of the Greene County Farm Bureau and his steadfast leadership in the Georgia Association of Conservation Districts.

Farming was Larry's life. He was a guiding force in the community, who actively worked with State and local leaders to foster and promote a better understanding of agriculture. He was a leading voice for Georgia's farmers. Larry's legacy will better ensure that our children and grandchildren will experience the same opportunities to enjoy the natural resources of Georgia's 10th Congressional District just as our parents and grandparents.

Mr. Eley is survived by his wife of nearly 50 years, Nancy, and their four children and their grandchildren. Dee Dee and I both extend our thoughts and prayers to the family during this time of bereavement.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have known Larry and to witness his passion firsthand. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his unyielding commitment to the State of Georgia and our agriculture community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Curry Tommy Haynes, a longtime Georgia resident and brave hero of the Vietnam war, who joined our Heavenly Father on July 16 after a long battle with cancer.

Mr. Haynes was one of the most decorated soldiers in our Nation's history, earning 10 Purple Heart awards for his bravery in combat in the jungles of Vietnam. Mr. Haynes remained an active member of the community after returning from duty by launching the Newton County EMT services, teaching locals to fly and skydive, and serving as a VA counselor to his fellow servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, while serving in Vietnam as part of the U.S. Army 173rd Airborne Brigade, Company C of the 503rd Infantry, Mr. Haynes was wounded

multiple times. He was shot in the arm, the thighs, the hand; he lost two fingers in one enemy ambush alone. Yet despite the multiple injuries, he never quit fighting.

In 2015, he was presented with a special letter of proclamation issued by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal during a special ceremony recognizing his sacrifice.

When asked how he survived combat with his numerous injuries, Mr. Haynes simply replied: I don't believe in luck. I owe it all to Jesus Christ.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please stand with me and join me in a moment of silence to honor the life and legacy of this American hero who deserves the respect of all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

As we all know, North Korea has targeted the United States with cyber attacks, and they are well on their way to being able to strike the United States with conventional and nuclear weapons. These two amendments would prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with telecom companies found to be complicit with North Korean cyber attacks or Chinese companies found to be providing support for the North Korean regime. There is no reason that we should be contracting with countries that are enemies of the United States.

I also support the amendment offered by my friend from Michigan (Mr. Bishop). Without a doubt, NATO is the greatest military alliance in the world, but that alliance works most effectively when the members of those various countries are pulling their weight and fulfilling their commitments in regard to their own defense budgets. This amendment calls on the President to encourage NATO allies to fulfill their commitments and to recognize those who are currently doing so.

I wholeheartedly agree with these amendments, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

As we all know, over the past 8 years, the world certainly has become a more dangerous place, and we face a variety of threats that, quite frankly, we are not keeping pace with, and we simply cannot continue a pattern of underfunding our military.

Yes, we must keep our financial house in order, but we absolutely cannot afford to allow the quality of our national defense to decline by further defense budget cuts.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 60.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of two Georgia State corrections officers, Sergeants Curtis Billue and Christopher Monica, who were killed in the line of duty on June 13 in Putnam County, Georgia.

I share with their families the deep sorrow perpetrated by the violence of two rogue inmates, and I pray that God comforts the Billue and Monica families in their time of grief.

Described as hardworking, kind, and devoted, Sergeants Billue and Monica will be remembered for their service and sacrifice, for their loyalty as public servants, and for their love and dedication to their families.

I am grateful that the two perpetrators of this crime have been brought back into custody, and I am confident that justice will be served.

American law enforcement officers make a promise to keep our country and communities safe. In return, we must restore the tradition of respect and honor that is owed to all members of the law enforcement community who are on the front lines.

In gratitude to Sergeants Billue and Monica, Governor Nathan Deal ordered the flags of Georgia to fly at halfstaff on July 17 and 20.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing their lives and service and to say ``thank you'' to every brother and sister in uniform who stand on that thin blue line.