Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the notice of the 2019 Pulitzer Prize in Special Awards and Citations awarded to the Capital Gazette of Annapolis, Maryland.

The Pulitzer Prizes

The 2019 Pulitzer Prize Winner in Special Awards and Citations

A special citation to honor the journalists, staff and

editorial board of the Capital Gazette, Annapolis, Maryland,

for their courageous response to the largest killing of

journalists in U.S. history in their newsroom on June 28,

2018, and for demonstrating unflagging commitment to covering

the news and serving their community at a time of unspeakable

grief. The citation comes with a $100,000 bequest by the

Pulitzer Board to be used to further the newspaper's

journalistic mission.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an obituary of Rebecca A. Smith, an advertising assistant for the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland.

[From the Baltimore Sun]

Rebecca A. Smith, Capital Gazette Advertising Assistant Who Held Family

and Friends at Center of Her Life

(By Frederick N. Rasmussen)

Rebecca Ann Smith made sure family, friends and workplace

colleagues were the center of her life. They brought her joy,

and those who knew her say she returned it abundantly.

``Everyone loved her,'' said a cousin, Tammy Kaskel of

Dundalk. ``Becca was always patient, supportive and never

jealous or envious. She'd do anything for anybody and didn't

have a mean bone in her body.''

``She had such promise in life,'' said an uncle, Thomas A.

Malinowski. ``She was a good kid and never got into

trouble.''

Ms. Smith, who worked as an advertising sales assistant for

the Capital Gazette, lost her life in the June 28 attack on

the newspaper's Annapolis office. She was 34 and lived in

Dundalk.

Ms. Smith was born in Baltimore and raised in North Point

Village and later Fort Howard.

The daughter of Richard Smith and Beth Ann Malinowski, she

was raised by her maternal grandparents, William Malinowski,

a driver for County Ride, and Catherine Malinowski, a

homemaker.

``I was very young then. I don't know what I would have

done without them,'' said her mother, now Beth Rittenour, of

Warren, Ohio. ``Rebecca was such a beautiful person, and

she'll always be in my heart forever.''

Ms. Smith attended Battle Grove Elementary School and

graduated in 2001 from Sparrows Point High School, where she

excelled in field hockey, ran cross country and was an avid

duckpin bowler.

``She also loved community theater and played the character

A Star to Be in `Annie.' She was in middle school then,''

said Ms. Kaskel, who conducts a performing arts camp and

works with special-needs children. ``She had such a great

voice, was very supportive, and wanted to see others

succeed.''

Mr. Malinowski, who also lives in Dundalk, recalled his

niece being a Pink Floyd fan when she was little. ``I'd put

on a Pink Floyd tape and she'd scoot her chair up to the

Mr. Speaker, on June 28, 2018, a gunman shot and killed five employees of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland. The Annapolis community, which I have the privilege of representing, was shaken to its core and will continue to grieve for years to come. But that same community also reached deep within itself to find an amazing resiliency which helped lift up the families who were victimized by this unconscionable act of violence.

On this anniversary and in solidarity with those families as well as hundreds of friends, coworkers, and acquaintances, we honor the memory of Rob Hiaasen, Wendi Winters, Gerald Fischman, John McNamara, and Rebecca Smith.

We must also confront the fact that those targeted by this cowardly assault were members of our valued local press corps. In America we cherish our free and independent press. We honor our journalists who follow the facts and find the truth. This terrible tragedy struck at the heart of newsrooms large and small across the country.

The day after this tragedy the Capital Gazette went to press--an inspiring act of courage and determination that rallied the Annapolis community.

Today, as we remember Rob, Wendi, Gerald, John, and Rebecca, let us also honor the courage of the whole Capital Gazette staff. Their dedication, their service to our community, and their commitment to a vibrant free press are a tribute to the journalism profession.

Madam Chair, my colleagues, somewhere in America there is a family in their living room looking at the television, hearing another report about how billionaires and super-PACs and insiders and lobbyists are running Washington and calling the shots on what happens in their lives.

And they are asking themselves: Do we matter anymore? Do we count? Will our voice be heard?

H.R. 1 says to that family and millions of families across the country who feel the same way: We get it. We hear you. We want to change this place and give you your voice back by restoring ethics and integrity, by pushing back on the influence of big money in our politics and by making sure that, when you go to vote, you don't have to run an obstacle course to the ballot box in America.

That is what we stand for.

Our colleague John Lewis reminds us all the time that we have to keep our eyes on the prize. Well, on this day, at this moment, in this House, the prize is H.R. 1. Let's pass H.R. 1.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to support this amendment. Again, what we are talking about here with H.R. 1 is increasing confidence, engagement, and participation on behalf of the voters. This opportunity to be able to return mail-in ballots at polling places is a way to further that.

I also want to say that with respect to this idea we have to distinguish between election fraud and voter fraud; what we saw in North Carolina was election fraud by a political operative taking advantage of voters, not voters engaged in fraud. So there is a very important distinction there.

I also really wanted to quickly correct the Record for my colleague from the other side of the aisle who mentioned a moment ago that somehow under H.R. 1 taxpayer money would be used to fund candidates' campaigns. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill provides explicitly that there will be no taxpayer funds going to any kind of candidate committees or candidate campaigns. I just wanted to correct the Record. I am happy to continue doing that over the course of the debate.

Madam Chair, I just want to support the amendment. Obviously, we want to make voting as accessible as we can to everybody, and this is a very, very important step in terms of supporting that with respect to people with disabilities. I want to thank my colleague for introducing the amendment.

I did, also, just want to correct the Record. The last speaker, who may not have been here a few minutes ago, was suggesting that, under H.R. 1, taxpayer money would go to fund political campaigns, candidates' campaigns, and I just want to reiterate that the bill is explicit that that would not happen.

There will be no taxpayer funds used to support candidates' campaigns. We have provided for that. We have come up with another way to support the matching fund that we want to see, to lift up small donors out there and give them a voice in their own democracy.

I know the gentleman who spoke a moment ago might not have been here previously, so I just wanted to make sure I got that on the Record.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just really wanted to echo what was just said, a couple of things that were said.

First of all to note that, clearly, best practices have emerged with respect to public companies making this kind of information available, but if that best practice has merit, then it ought to be applied across the board, which is the argument that we are making. I thank you for your work and interest in this issue.

The SEC is there to protect shareholders. It is there to protect the public. That is the purpose of that agency. Within the basket of things and measures that it can do to protect the public is to promote this kind of disclosure.

The rider that we are trying to get rid of in this bill that you would strike, that rider is preventing that kind of inquiry and disclosure and protection of the public to occur, and that is why it is so important that that rider be struck. I agree with the gentleman in his opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his work in introducing the bill that would repeal this rider that prevents the IRS from the kind of inquiry that should be done.

This is about figuring out who is leaning into the big money game. So it goes with a number of other riders that we have seen that have been put in place over the last few years.

We want to know if Federal contractors are leaning into the big money game. That is why we want the executive branch to have rules of disclosure with respect to what is happening with money and Federal contractors. That is why we wanted to get rid of the rider that would stop that from happening.

We want to know if public companies are leaning into the big money game. That is why we want to get rid of that rider that would stop the SEC, since they are supposed to protect the public from following that disclosure and looking into whether money is coming into that space.

And in this instance, we want to make sure that these entities that are supposed to be tax exempt aren't leaning into the big money game, and the IRS is there as the agency to do that.

Madam Chair, we need to make sure we protect that ability.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding her time, and I want to commend her on this amendment.

I want to respond to this idea of this kind of top-down federalization of our voting. That is not what is happening here. The States are going to continue to have the authority to put together how elections operate. What we are doing is we are collecting best practices and then making a policy decision at the Federal level that those best practices ought to extend across the country.

If you think about it, Mr. Chairman, that is our role as Federal legislators. Our purpose here is to gather up wisdom from all parts of the country, figure out what things work and what things don't work, and if it rises to a level of being a good policy suggestion, then putting that into legislation. That is what we are doing, and that is what this particular change would do, and it would make it much easier for people to access the ballot box.

So, again, I want to thank Congresswoman Houlahan for this amendment, and I support it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Actually, I want to echo the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois and the remarks of the gentlewoman from California in congratulating Congresswoman Spanberger on this excellent amendment and emphasizing, as they did, how lucky we are to have the benefit of the expertise that is brought to this Chamber by Congresswoman Spanberger, based on her national security experience. We need to maximize what people can offer here, and this amendment is a perfect example of that.

There is increasing anxiety out there among the populace about these attempts to hack into our election infrastructure. This measure will make sure that we are all on alert to that. I thank the gentlewoman for the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding her time, and I also congratulate her on this amendment and her service here in the House and contributing her expertise, again, as I said a moment ago with respect to our other colleague. Providing her insight and her experience here in shaping these amendments and making our legislation stronger is absolutely valuable. We need to make our democracy more resilient.

The gentlewoman made the point that too often now these foreign adversaries can get into our politics and sow discord. The way we push back at that is by putting our antenna out, our radar, making sure we are keeping that kind of spending out of our politics. That is exactly what the gentlewoman's amendment does. I thank her for it. I support it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, last year, in the 2018 election, a powerful message was sent to this Congress that the public wants us to clean up our politics, fight corruption, unrig the system, and make sure that voting rights are protected.

I think part of the reason the message was so strong is that, for the last 8 years under a Republican Congress, there has been no progress made on any of those priorities, so there is this pent-up demand out there among the public. They want their voice back. H.R. 1 is our opportunity to give them their voice back.

The message they are sending is very simple. The first message is: Make it possible for us to get to the ballot box without running an obstacle course.

It is inconceivable, it is incomprehensible, that more than 50 years after John Lewis, our colleague, was bloodied on the Edmund Pettus Bridge protesting for voting rights, we still can't get it right in America when it comes to voting.

That is ridiculous. We need to make it more possible to register and vote in this country so that people can get to the ballot box and their voices can be heard. That is one thing they are saying to us.

The other thing they are saying to us is, when you get to Washington, if you are a lawmaker, if you serve in an office of public trust, behave yourself, abide by ethics, be accountable to the people, remember who sent you there, and be transparent. We have provisions in H.R. 1 that strengthen ethics and accountability, as we should.

The third thing they said to us, loud and clear, was, when you get to Washington, don't get tangled up in the money, don't let the special interests and the insiders call the shots on priorities in Congress, remember who sent you, and fight for us. So we have measures in here to clean up the campaign finance system, create more disclosure, transparency, so we know where that secret money is coming from, building a new system of funding campaigns in America that is not owned by the special interests and the big money.

Let's build a new system of funding campaigns in America that is not owned by the special interests and the big money and the insiders. Let's build a system that is owned by the American people, where they call the shots, where small donors can have their contributions matched so that their voice is amplified, so they are the ones who run the show, so candidates go to them and listen to what they have to say instead of hanging out with the lobbyists and the big-money crowd.

That is what this bill offers.

My colleagues on the other side keep talking about how this is going to be taxpayer money for this system. Find me the provision. There is no provision in this bill that says that any taxpayer money is going to go to this system, because it is not.

We have come up with an elegant solution where we go to the lawbreakers, the people who are leaning on our system and breaking the law, and we ask them, with a small surcharge, to contribute to this fund. That is where the match will come from.

We are going to the people who aren't playing fair with our system, and we are asking them to underwrite a clean election system. That is how it should work.

Let's restore the voice of the people. Let's pass H.R. 1.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for all her hard work on this bill.

I am concerned that there is a collective delirium that seems to have infected part of this Chamber. I keep hearing our colleagues on the other side say that the public financing system, the 6-to-1 matching system that we want to set up, is taxpayer funded.

Hear this: It is not taxpayer funded. It is not taxpayer funded. It is not taxpayer funded.

It is lawbreaker funded.

We are setting up a fund, called the freedom from influence fund, because we don't want the big money and the special interests to exercise influence in our campaigns anymore.

The freedom from influence fund will be filled with dollars that come from putting a surcharge, an assessment, on people who break the law: corporations who have engaged in criminal activity or are subject to civil penalties. Corporate malfeasance, that is where the dollars will come from. The people who are breaking the law, they are going to fund the freedom from influence account that will be there to match small donations.

Now, let me tell you why it is so important that small donors be the ones that have the power.

If you are a candidate and you have to raise money for your campaign, right now, in order to raise the money you need, you have to go to the deep pocket and the PACs and the lobbyists.

And here is what happens: You start to think like the company you keep. So if you are hanging around with those folks because that is where you are raising your money, you are going to start putting their priorities first, not the public's priorities.

But if we have a 6-to-1 matching system funded by lawbreakers, not taxpayers----

Mr. Chair, if we have a matching system that gives power to small donors, now the candidate is going to say: If I want to raise money from my campaign and power my campaign, I am going to go spend time with real people in my district. I am going to go to a house party where somebody can give $25 or $50, and then that 6-to-1 match will come in and I can power my campaign.

So instead of hanging out with the lobbyists on K Street or with the big money donors or with the PACs and super-PACs, I am going to spend time with people in my district. They are going to tell me what their priorities are, and then I am going to go to Washington and I am going to fight for them.

That is why we are creating this system: to take power away from the PACs and the big money and the insiders who are calling the shots now and give it back to the people. That is why this bill is called the For the People Act.

So let's restore their voice, give them back the power that they deserve, and give them their rightful ownership of their own democracy.

Mr. Chair, let's support H.R. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank him for his work on House Administration. I know, as well, that Congressman Anthony Brown helped with this particular amendment.

This is really critical. This is all about, and H.R. 1, in large part, is about the journey to the ballot box, and how do we make that journey easier for people; how do we make sure that they can get there without too much of an undue burden; and that is what this would do for rural voters.

This would require that States ensure that the polling places are located in rural areas. So this idea that somebody in Washington is going to be deciding where the location is, that is preposterous. We are just saying make sure that the State figures it out; and so each State can decide what makes the most sense in terms of placing these voting places for rural voters.

So it is a very, very commonsense amendment. I want to thank the gentleman for introducing it and, definitely, I support it.

Mr. Chairman, as you know from the discussion today, we obviously feel very strongly that there needs to be as much disclosure as possible and transparency and accountability when it comes to how money flows into the political arena. I think the public has a particular apprehension about how insidious spending can be when it has to do with government contractors. The public deserves to know who is spending in their politics and, particularly, if contractors--who are the ones who are going to get these government contracts--are spending in a way that could potentially influence the contracting decisions. In a sense, what is happening is people are leaning on the government potentially using money and influence in a way that cuts against what the public interests might be.

That is why prohibiting the executive branch from even considering-- that is what this rider does. It actually prohibits the executive branch from even sitting down and considering whether there should be certain rules that should govern what happens in the contractor space in terms of political spending. That doesn't make any sense. That doesn't make common sense that the executive branch ought to be able to figure out some rules so that that transparency is in place.

That is why we want to repeal it. That is why we have that in H.R. 1. I oppose this amendment that would strike the repeal.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding, and I thank her for her amendment.

I would just say very quickly, I think this is a good amendment that actually improves the bill. And to the point of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), it is because technology is changing quickly all the time and one has to kind of keep ahead of the curve on that to make sure the decisions are made in a sensible way, that having a committee that can assemble the kind of expertise that you need to bring to bear on a decision like this makes perfect sense. It can allow the EAC to function better.

Evaluating these security grants, I think, makes a lot of sense, and they can keep up-to-date on what the changing technology is so that the EAC can benefit from that input.

So I think it is an outstanding amendment. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms.

Scanlon) for introducing it. I support it.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

The gentleman is right. There are examples of these systems across the country. Actually, Maryland has, now, two jurisdictions that have embraced public financing.

You are worried about the moderates being wiped out. In fact, what is happening is the moderates are fleeing the political town square because they feel like their vote doesn't matter and their engagement doesn't matter because they support people who then go to places where laws are made, and those folks are getting taken hostage by the big money and the special interests.

So the smart moderate voter out there says: What is the point? I am going to opt out of the political system.

And when they vacate the political town square, then the extremes run in and they fill the vacuum.

So, actually, if you want to bring moderates back in, if you want to bring citizens across the political spectrum back into our system, create something that makes them feel empowered. That is what this small donor matching system is all about. Then you will get these people who have run up into the hills and have said: My democracy doesn't respect me anymore.

By the way, these are the ballasts in the ship of state, those kind of folks, engaged citizens who feel like the democracy should work for them. But the evidence they get every day is that the big money is running the show: Why don't I just save myself, you know, my dignity, by stepping back, because why am I going to pretend that my voice actually matters, that my involvement matters?

We create a system that makes them feel like they have power again, and they will come out of the hills. They will come back down into the political town square. They will help create that moderation that you are talking about, because they are solid citizens who care about their democracy.

So this is a very important amendment because it will give us a retrospective on how the system is working. We can collect that data, and then that will inform any improvements we want to make going forward.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate the gentlewoman on her amendment, and I support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for this amendment which is, as she says, a very commonsense amendment. I don't really understand what the objection would be.

If you don't apply the same ethical standards to unpaid staff or people who are working in the executive branch as you do to paid, what you are left with is a gigantic loophole that could be taken advantage of, and I don't think that the average person out there could understand why you would make that kind of distinction. So this is a very logical thing to do. Just because you are not paid doesn't mean you might not have a conflict of interest.

So this is an amendment that simply directs the Office of Government Ethics to come up with some rules to make sure that senior administration officials, special governmental employees who draw no salary, are still going to abide by the ethics laws.

Again, if the job here of all of us is to meet the expectations of the public in terms of how things should function up here in Washington, abiding ethical standards and observing conflicts of interest rules, then this meets that expectation directly. I think it is a good amendment.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise up in support of the rules package being put forward by the Democratic majority. In particular, I applaud the decision to establish a Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, and I thank Chairman McGovern, Speaker Pelosi, and all those who made this a priority.

We know that the best motives of Members on both sides of the aisle are too often frustrated by dysfunction in the legislative process, which then makes it difficult for us to deliver on the promises that we give to our constituents and to the Nation. Diminishing congressional resources and, at times, overly centralized decisionmaking have empowered outside interests in the legislative process, and those are interests who don't always have the public interest in mind.

Of course, we know that modern-day campaigning demands are running Members ragged. We are increasingly unable to study the material and build the relationships necessary for a healthy legislative institution.

We have a responsibility to the people to build a Congress that serves the people well. This is not something that is going to be easy, and it is not something that is going to happen until we make it happen. It will take work, but it is work that needs to be done.

The challenges we face as an institution are not entirely new, as my colleague, Congressman Kilmer, just said. For much of modern congressional history, Congress has continuously wrestled with how to be more effective as the first branch of government.

In the past, when the challenges grew, we have come together as a body to explore reforms to our rules and to institutional design, congressional capacity, and the matter of resources.

In 1945, in 1965, and again in 1992, Congress convened Joint Committees to study the functioning of Congress and to propose comprehensive, expert-guided reforms.

Such a moment is before us again. It will be a challenge. After all, Congress is complicated and messy by design. Modernizing its operation is no simple task, but that is exactly the role that the proposed Select Committee can play. It can create a space for Members of Congress from across the ideological spectrum, representing different parts of the country, different world views and different backgrounds, to come together to work through the challenges and think through the remedies. It will be a place for experts, historians, and academics to present their views and help us wrestle with how to self-improve; and it will signal to the American people that we are earnest in our efforts to make Congress work better.

I strongly support the rules package before us, and I look forward to the work of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to declare the Baltimore Oracles, my staff's congressional softball team, once again champions, having completed a perfect season, including an impressive 18-3 victory in the championship game.

Captained by Peter Gelman, Katie Teleky, and the equipment manager, Raymond O'Mara, the team's stalwart defense and steadfast offense was unstoppable. Yet roster depth proved to be the team's ultimate advantage.

Mike Pulver, Lucinda Lessley, Paul Kincaid, Jocelyn Kissell, Maddie Bainer, Laura Lubben, Ben Proshek, Rebecca O'Mara, Kate Durkin, Anna Killius, Shannon Frede, and Zach Weber each contributed to form a magnificent infield, while Brian Kaissi, Max Frankel, Andy Allen, Mike VanDan Huevel, James Howard, Stephen Demarais, Jaelon Moaney, and Sam Follansbee worked together to lock down the outfield, as did Jermaine Vincent, who welcomed his newborn son, Jayden, into the world just hours after lifting the trophy.

Tim O'Neil, the team's heart and soul, always kept hope alive with his insistence that the team hit ``just a single,'' while the team's loveable mascot, Winston, wagged his tail in agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the Baltimore Oracles are, once again, champions, and that is truly world class.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act, an important bill that will ensure consumers can get the lowest price for their drugs.

This bill is also aligned with the bipartisan Biosimilars Competition Act, a bill that I introduced that will shine a light on secret agreements called pay-for-delay deals. Pay-for-delay deals are great deals for the drug companies, but they are bad deals for consumers. Pay-for-delay refers to a practice where brand-name drug or biologic manufacturers make agreements with competing manufacturers to keep their lower-cost drugs off the market in exchange for a settlement.

Brand-name drugs often have exorbitant costs compared to their generic counterparts. Although they make up approximately--listen to the statistics--although they make up approximately 10 percent of all drugs dispensed in America, brand-name drugs make up 72 percent of U.S. drug spending. A 2013 FTC report estimates that these pay-for-delay agreements cost consumers $3.5 billion each year.

FTC currently has the authority--and this is good--to review agreements like these between conventional drug manufacturers. But this authority does not extend to the manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs, which are new, cutting-edge drugs that are often extremely expensive.

This means that right now, we have no way of knowing how many of these backroom deals occur between manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs. That is why I introduced the Biosimilars Competition Act, a bipartisan bill, which would combat these agreements that keep drug prices high and have the effect of harming patients.

These provisions would require manufacturers of biologics and biosimilar drugs to report pay-for-delay agreements and file them with the FTC and the Department of Justice for review of antitrust and anticompetitive behavior.

Granting the FTC the authority to monitor these deals and punish bad actors, will deter many of these backroom deals from being made in the first place, and will help crack down on unfair deals that give millions of dollars to big pharmaceutical companies, while forcing American consumers to pay more for lifesaving drugs.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these new requirements because they are good for consumers. They will increase transparency in drug pricing, and add more competition to the drug market, both of which will help lower drug costs at the pharmacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 2979, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 390 West 5th Street in San Bernardino, California, as the Jack H. Brown Post Office Building.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Aguilar) so that he may tell us more about the honorable veteran from San Bernardino, California, Jack Brown.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. I urge the passage of H.R. 2979, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 4946, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1075 North Tustin Street in Orange, California, as the Specialist Trevor A. Win'E Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to tell us more about Trevor Anthony Win'E.

Mr. Speaker, actually, I have no further speakers. I want to thank the gentleman for his powerful words about a life well and honorably lived.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 4946, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 5504, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4801 West Van Giesen Street in West Richland, Washington, as the Sergeant Dietrich Schmieman Post Office Building.

A graduate of Columbia Basin College, Dietrich Schmieman joined the Marine Corps in 2009. Following a deployment to Okinawa, Japan, as a military parachutist and diver, Dietrich was promoted to sergeant and selected for Marine Corps Special Operations School.

You heard that he tragically lost his life in a cargo plane crash in July, but before that, he would complete a second overseas deployment and attain his goal of serving as a critical skills operator.

Sergeant Schmieman received 14 awards and decorations during his service and continues to be deeply missed by his Marine team, who plans to climb his beloved Mount Rainier in his honor this summer.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 5504, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge the passage of H.R. 5504 in memory of Sergeant Schmieman, an American hero, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, the CASES for Constituents Act, introduced by Representatives Garret Graves and Joe Kennedy.

This bill, as you heard, would modernize the way Federal agencies process Privacy Act waivers and make it easier for Members of Congress to help constituents get assistance from Federal agents. We all know what this means. It helps to speed up the process of assisting your constituents, so it is a very valuable improvement.

A constituent has to provide an agency with written consent before a congressional office can obtain information from the agency on behalf of the constituent. Some agencies, as we have heard and know, have outdated policies and still require these consent forms to be mailed or faxed. Under the bill before us, the Office of Management and Budget would be required to establish standards for Federal agencies to accept electronic consent forms and for agencies to accept such forms.

The bill also would require the OMB to operate a consolidated online portal that would allow individuals to submit electronic consent forms and to track

the status of their form. The bill would also allow congressional offices to provide online links to the portal.

I appreciate very much the bipartisan way in which this bill was developed. I want to thank the majority for their cooperation in making a number of improvements to the bill; for example, the substitute amendment would require OMB to include features to protect the privacy of individuals who use the consolidated online portal required under the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good, bipartisan bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, obviously this bill would work a very substantial improvement on our constituent services operations. I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 3076, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in consideration of H.R. 4960, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 511 East Walnut Street in Columbia, Missouri, as the Spc. Sterling William Wyatt Post Office Building.

Specialist Wyatt epitomized dedication and hard work, becoming an Eagle Scout, first degree black belt in tae kwon do, and a certified nurse attendant before his high school graduation.

He carried that spirit with him when he enlisted in the Army, joining the 20th Infantry Regiment. Specialist Wyatt deployed to Kandahar, Afghanistan, and gave his life on July 11, 2012, when his vehicle was hit by an IED. Just 21 years old, Specialist Wyatt was awarded the Medal of Valor and a Bronze Star.

Mr. Speaker, we should pass this bill to remember the ultimate sacrifice paid by Specialist Sterling William Wyatt.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of H.R. 4960, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge the passage of H.R. 4960 in honor of Specialist Wyatt, and I yield back the balance of my time.