Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairwoman for yielding, and for her leadership on our committee.

I rise today to offer my strong support for H.J. Res. 37. This legislation is about protecting our Nation's workers, small businesses, and taxpayers.

As a former labor and employment attorney, I have seen the maze that businesses must jump through in order to become a Federal contractor. Well, this rule would only make things that much harder for them.

This regulation, due to the price of compliance, could force small- and medium-sized businesses, who can't afford to hire a massive legal team, out of being able to get contracts with the Federal Government.

This rule will add subjectivity to the Federal procurement process and deprive contractors of due process rights. As an attorney, I take that threat very seriously.

We should be in the business of supporting policies to make it easier for these kinds of businesses to get new work, not harder.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on the other side say this is just about punishing bad actors. But this rule would require Federal contractors to disclose even alleged violations of wrongdoing, regardless of whether or not there is any credibility to the claims. Right now, there are effective policies in place to prevent bad actors and contractors that break the law from receiving government contracts.

This could be especially damaging for employers who are the target of union organizing campaigns, or in a situation where a competitor files a claim in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. It elevates the risk of frivolous complaints and the loss of business.

Instead of muddying the water and making it harder for our Nation's small- and medium-sized businesses, let's use the current framework, not a new burdensome regulation, to enforce the law and hold any bad actors accountable.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution to block an overreaching and counterproductive rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my deepest appreciation for my Director of Operations, Errical Bryant, for her years of service to Alabama's First Congressional District. Today marks Errical's final day serving the people of Southwest Alabama.

Like so many on Capitol Hill, Errical started out as an intern for Congressman Sonny Callahan in 2000. After working for a period of time as a door attendant in the U.S. Senate, Errical returned to serving the First District as Constituent Services Director for Congressman Jo Bonner. She later added the responsibilities of Administrative Director and Scheduler. Errical served in this position for over ten years, until Congressman Bonner retired from Congress in 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I asked former Congressman Jo Bonner to share his appreciation for Errical. Congressman Bonner said, ``Simply put, Errical is a wonderful human being--one of the finest people I know-- and her many characteristics of honesty, hard work, dedication, and patriotic duty are the very qualities that will well serve America's next Attorney General. There are very few people in Alabama who have interacted with our office over the past 14 years who have not had the pleasure of working with Errical Bryant. In many ways, she has become the face of Alabama's First Congressional District in Washington and she has always made visitors feel extra special and at home, forever representing Congressman Byrne and me in the most professional manner humanly possible. While Errical's strengths are considerable, her talents are unlimited and her love of country is second to none.''

When I was elected to Congress, one of the first pieces of advice I received from Congressman Bonner was to hire Errical. I distinctively remember my wife, Rebecca, and I meeting with her to discuss the position. During our meeting, Errical said ``If you do everything I tell you to do, then you will be a really good Congressman.'' Having worked with Errical over the last three years, I can say there was a lot of truth to that statement.

As my Director of Operations, Errical handles everything from scheduling meetings to managing office finances to planning special events. She is a master of the little things and keeps the office running smoothly and effectively. Despite all the stress and pressure of a Congressional office, Errical keeps the train on the tracks and the schedule moving.

She has also helped countless people from Southwest Alabama arrange successful visits to our nation's capital. Upon their arrival to Washington, she has been a welcoming face ensuring southern hospitality remains ever present in our office. In addition to planning everyday visits, she has overseen ticket distribution for multiple presidential inaugurations and major gatherings.

Errical has arranged important visits to Southwest Alabama for other Members of Congress, cabinet officials, and foreign ambassadors. These visits were planned and executed perfectly, which helped leave a positive impression of our part of the country on both national and world leaders.

As our internship program coordinator, Errical has also helped mold and shape the next generation of leaders. She has instilled professionalism and confidence in countless young professionals that will serve them well in whatever career path they take.

In addition to all of her official duties and responsibilities, Errical has served as the office's unofficial party planner and executive chef. Displaying the same southern hospitality she shows to our constituents, Errical has organized countless celebrations for co- workers,

usually bringing in a classic ``Pouncey Family'' homemade cake or pie.

I asked some of her current and former colleagues for one word that describes Errical, and I think these hit home: dedicated, steady, diligent, passionate, ethical, motivated, funny, sunny, meticulous, loyal, accommodating, conscientious, and tenacious.

Mr. Speaker, Errical has been ``the face'' of Alabama's First Congressional District for much of the last fifteen years, and her service will be missed. As she moves on to begin a new role, I want to wish her and her husband, Thurston, all the best.

So, on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to thank Errical for her years of hard work, commitment, and service to Southwest Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of a community leader, public servant, proud veteran, personal mentor, and great American, Lewis Odom.

Lewis Odom lived a life many strive to emulate, a life filled with purpose, integrity, and selfless commitment to those around him. He had such a genuine impact on my life and the lives of so many others.

From a young age, Lewis held himself to a standard of excellence. Upon graduation from high school, Lewis enlisted in the U.S. Navy Reserve and was selected to join the prestigious V-12 Naval College Training Program during World War II and thereafter. Through this program, he attended Millsaps College and Tulane University and went on to serve in the Navy aboard the USS Mississippi.

After serving, Lewis continued his education at the University of Alabama where he received a law degree, and, soon after, commissioned as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force in 1951, serving as a legal officer in Korea.

Lewis Odom's career of service was only just beginning when he left the military. His hard work and integrity as a lawyer were recognized as he became the general counsel of the U.S. Senate Small Business Committee. He would go on to serve as administrative assistant to Alabama Senator John Sparkman before being named staff director and counsel for the Senate Banking Committee. He played a critical role in shaping many of our Nation's financial regulations during this important time period.

Probably one of his most memorable accomplishments during his career on Capitol Hill was to plan and organize the inauguration ceremony for President John F. Kennedy. He often spoke of the great challenge and honor of that job.

Following his time on Capitol Hill, he served as deputy to the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. He was eventually appointed senior Deputy Comptroller of the Currency before retiring from Federal service in 1981.

After his years of service in the Federal Government, Lewis returned to practice law in Mobile, joining the law firm of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom. That was when I met Lewis. As a newly minted lawyer, Lewis took me under his wing and served as an important mentor.

Lewis was a thorough and exact lawyer who paid attention to detail and helped instill those traits in me and many others that he worked with. He inspired in me the confidence to hold myself to a standard of excellence, but he did so without being overbearing or harsh. He took a new lawyer and allowed me to gain invaluable experience.

As a young lawyer, Lewis taught me an important lesson that every young lawyer must learn: to choose your battles wisely. This lesson applied to more than just the field of law, however, and I have continued to use this principle in many of the other skills that I learned from Lewis throughout my life and career.

Lewis was also a true community leader committed to making Alabama a better place. From his first days in Mobile to his last, Lewis was ever present in the community, serving in any way he could, always giving his time and his devotion.

During his years in Mobile, Lewis served as the chairman of the Alabama Ethics Commission, the chairman of the Mobile water board, chancellor of the Episcopal Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast, and chairman of the Mobile Museum Board.

He was also a strong supporter of the University of Alabama, serving as president to various alumni chapters and as a founding member of the Farrah Law Society for the University of Alabama School of Law.

It is true that Lewis worked just as hard for his community in his retirement as he had earlier in his legal career.

Sadly, Lewis Odom passed away on January 16 of this year at the age of 91.

My wife, Rebecca, and I were both heartbroken to learn of his passing because he was such a dear friend. During this time of sadness, we take great

comfort in remembering the impact he had on each of us as well as on our community, State, and country.

I hope his wife, Janelle; son, Mike; daughter, Patty; beloved grandchildren and great-grandchildren can take comfort in the same.

Mr. Speaker, Lewis was a man of great integrity and set an example for all those around him to hold ourselves to such a level of excellence and service. He was a great man, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, there are few people who leave such a profound impact on the lives of so many as former Alabama Governor Albert Brewer did. Albert Brewer was more than just a Governor. He was a dedicated public servant committed to the betterment of our state and our people.

His unfailing commitment to the state of Alabama was apparent in his early years. After attending The University of Alabama, Gov. Brewer served three terms in the Alabama House of Representatives, and during the last of these terms, was elected by his colleagues as the youngest person in Alabama's history to serve as the Speaker.

After his time as Speaker, Brewer would go on to serve as Lieutenant Governor before being elevated to the position of Governor after the death of Lurleen Wallace in 1968. When he ran for a full term in 1970, he exhibited his compassion for the people of Alabama and his bravery in fundamentally changing how gubernatorial candidates organized their respective campaigns by including African Americans. In his platform, Brewer fought for education funding, an ethics commission, and a commission to revise Alabama's 1901 state constitution.

Governor Brewer sought to help those who were disenfranchised and in poverty throughout Alabama and to include newly registered African American voters. His dedication to the disenfranchised speaks volumes for his character and his commitment to selfless public service. Albert Brewer raised the bar for public service in Alabama.

After leaving office, Governor Brewer followed his passion for education and became a distinguished professor at Cumberland School of Law, where he taught courses on ethics and constitutional law. His expertise, impact on students, and passion were recognized by Cumberland School of Law with the dedication of the Martha F. and Albert P. Brewer Plaza on April 4, 2008.

Sadly, Governor Brewer passed away on January 2, 2017 at the age of 88. His integrity and dedication to public service have made a positive mark that cannot be undone. His legacy will be one of compassion, selfless public service, and an unfailing dedication to his family and the people of Alabama.

I consider it an honor to have known Albert Brewer and worked with him over the years. On behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to share my deepest condolences with his family, friends, and loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, Albert Brewer was one of the best governors in our state's history, and there is no doubt Alabama is a better state because of his service and sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation in order to ensure General James Mattis can become the next United States Secretary of Defense. It is critically important to our military men and women as well as to the safety and security of the American people that the Trump administration has a capable, competent Secretary of Defense in place on January 20.

Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen need to know who their leader is, and we

should do everything we can to minimize any gap in leadership. General Mattis is uniquely qualified for this vital role, and his nomination has earned praise from both Democrats and Republicans, as shown by the vote yesterday in the United States Senate.

During his over 40 years of service to our country, he has consistently shown both a great appreciation for the true toils of conflict and the clear ability to defeat an enemy. That is an important balance for anyone leading our military.

Now, I know some of my colleagues on the other side have concerns about the process, but let's not get caught up in a process fight when it comes to the safety and security of the American people. The fundamental question should be: Do you or do you not support General Mattis serving as our Secretary of Defense?

Now, when I found out General Mattis would not be appearing before our committee, of course I was disappointed, but I pulled out my copy of ``Meditations'' by the great Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, which is his favorite book. He carries it with him everywhere. If you read those meditations, you know where they were written. They were written on the northern frontier of the Roman Empire where the Emperor General Marcus Aurelius spent several years to be with his legionnaires as they fought against the enemy across the line of the Rhine. In those meditations he talks about the importance of humility.

Any general who reads the ``Meditations'' of Marcus Aurelius consistently so that he can remember that his duty is to his soldiers and to a humility before the power that he has is someone who should be leading the Department of Defense of the United States. I have great confidence that he knows that the strength of our military lies in the men and women who fight for us.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to help pave the way for General Mattis to lead our military and protect the safety and the security of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the House and the Senate met to fulfill our solemn constitutional responsibility to count the votes of electors for President and Vice President. This year the joint session was confronted with a record number of so-called faithless electors-- electors who were supposed to vote for the Presidential candidates named on their States' ballot, but, instead, voted for someone else.

Different States handle their faithless electors in different ways. In my view, the joint session rightly fulfilled its constitutional responsibility by simply taking the certified results of each State without intervention. This was in line with precedent set in 1969 and with the text of the Constitution.

Because I believe this decision to be correct, I did not file an objection during the counting process. However, I wish for the Record to contain my views on this matter and to express my concern that an avoidable constitutional crisis on this subject is a very real possibility in the future.

The faithless elector problem has often been seen as academic, but in 2000, Vice President Gore was three faithless electors away from the Presidency. As a point of reference, there were 10 faithless electors in this election. Thus, this is not a matter that should be taken lightly.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the States the exclusive power to appoint electors in a manner decided by their State legislatures. Clause 4 provides the sole grant of authority to Congress in the process to determine the time for choosing electors and the day they cast their vote.

The process to count electors is outlined in Clause 3 and identical language which superseded it in the 12th Amendment. It provides that, ``The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. . . .'' Under the 12th Amendment, the persons receiving a majority of the vote ``shall be'' the President and Vice President.

The extent of what Congress' powers are in the counting process has been the subject of over 200 years of debate. The Congressional Record from 1800 includes a lengthy speech by Senator Charles Pinckney, a Framer of the Constitution, who stated that as the Framers wished the President to be independent, ``It never was intended . . . to have given to Congress . . . the right to object to any electoral vote.''

The first successful effort to expand Congress' power in counting did not come until 1865, when Congress adopted a joint House-Senate rule on the subject. Under the rule, no electoral vote that incurred an objection could be counted unless both Houses agreed.

The joint rule was tempered by the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which still governs the counting process to this day. The law allows an objection signed by a House and a Senate Member. However, under the Electoral Count Act, unless there is a case of double returns, no electoral vote regularly given and lawfully certified shall be rejected.

In 1969, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a Republican elector from North Carolina, was faithless, and the Governor of North Carolina certified the State's electoral certificate with knowledge of his vote.

The House and the Senate thoroughly debated whether Dr. Bailey's vote should be counted, but ultimately voted to reject the challenge. Opponents of the challenge, in my view, properly argued that Congress lacked the power to exclude Dr. Bailey's vote under the Electoral Count Act and, more importantly, Congress had no power to exclude his vote under the Constitution. To do so would be a violation of the rights of the sovereign States.

Some have argued that the Bailey precedent is not applicable when an elector violates his or her State's law in casting a faithless vote. I find this argument constitutionally suspect. Unless no candidate reaches a majority, Congress' role in the counting process appears to be ministerial: to count votes and announce a result.

For that reason, the issue of faithless electors is rightly resolved at the State level, before the results reach Congress. At the present time, however, a

hodgepodge of State laws exist to deal with faithless electors, some of which are ill-equipped to handle the problem.

Fortunately, the Uniform Law Commission has proposed the Faithful Presidential Electors Act, which has already been enacted in four States. The Faithful Presidential Electors Act provides a State- administered pledge of faithfulness, with any attempt by an elector to submit a vote in violation of that pledge constituting a resignation from the office of elector. In such case, the act provides a mechanism for filling an electoral vacancy.

At the conclusion of my remarks, I will include in the Record a copy of the Faithful Presidential Electors Act.

In short, Mr. Speaker, based upon my view of the Constitution, Congress properly handled the issue of faithless electors in this election. This election should, however, serve as a wake-up call to States that further action on their part may be necessary.

Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act

(Drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and by it Approved and Recommended for Enactment in All the States at its Annual Conference Meeting in Its One-Hundred-and-Nineteenth Year

in Chicago, Illinois July 9-16, 2010 Without Prefatory Note or

Comments)

[Copyright 2010 by National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform

State Laws, September 28, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my strong support for this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no greater friend to the United States than Israel. Israel is a beacon of hope in a very dangerous part of the world. They are an important economic and military partner of the United States, and they play a critical role when it comes to fighting radical Islamic terrorism.

Given the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, I was deeply disappointed to see the United States recently passed a flawed anti- Israel resolution that will only make it more difficult to achieve peace in the Middle East. Even more disappointing was the fact that the United States just stood by and did nothing as it happened. Instead of vetoing the resolution, the United States Ambassador abstained from voting at all.

In other words, the United States turned its back and looked the other way as the U.N. passed a flawed resolution attacking Israel. This represents a

dangerous break in a longstanding and bipartisan policy to protect our sole democratic ally in the region from one-sided resolutions at the

Mr. Speaker, back in December, President Obama gave a major speech regarding the United States policy towards Cuba. The President said:

I do not believe we can continue doing the same thing for

five decades and expect a different result.

In other words, the President is saying that, when something isn't working, we need to try a new approach.

I wonder if the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree that we should apply that same standard to our Nation's education policy. As a former member of the Alabama State school board and as the former chancellor of postsecondary education for Alabama, I think it is time for a change.

For the last 50 years, Federal education policy has failed our students, especially our Nation's poor students, who need us the most. Just look at the statistics. Only 38 percent of high school seniors can read at grade level, and just 26 percent are proficient in math. Survey after survey shows that the United States is lagging behind other countries in terms of education.

We clearly need a new approach, and that is why I was proud to support the Student Success Act yesterday in our Committee on Education and the Workforce. For too long, the focus has been on the needs and wishes of Washington special interest groups instead of on the needs of those who matter the most--the students. It is time we change that. Immediately, two glaring flaws come to mind when looking at current policy:

First, our local teachers and administrators are drowning in paperwork and mandates. While only 10 percent of the funding for K-12 education comes from the Federal Government, the Government Accountability Office has found that 41 percent of the paperwork comes from the Federal level. That is unacceptable.

Second, title 1 funds, which are intended to support our Nation's most vulnerable, are picking and choosing winners by forcing money to some schools and by not allowing that money to others. The money should follow the student. We shouldn't allow students to remain stuck in failing schools. Every child deserves a fair chance.

Mr. Speaker, this top-down, heavyhanded Federal approach to education is not working, and, frankly, it is outdated. It is not the 1960s anymore: there are more than three television networks; we aren't all eating Wonder Bread; our phones aren't rotary phones tied to the wall; and our education system shouldn't be stuck in the sixties either. Instead of focusing on special interest groups, let's turn the focus to students, parents, and local leaders.

While the other side is always quick to point out the D.C. special interest groups, which stand by their failed approach, the Student Success Act is supported by the National School Boards Association, which is made up of more than 90,000 local school board members. These are the very people who are actually dealing with Federal education policy and how it actually works on the ground every day, and they want a new approach. Democrats and Republicans and these local school boards want a new approach.

Our teachers need the flexibility to innovate. That is why the Student Success Act reforms a patchwork of narrowly scoped grant programs and, instead, creates a Local Academic Flexible Grant, which allows local schools to spark innovation and use teaching methods that work best for their students.

During committee debate yesterday, my colleagues on the other side were so committed to these same old, failed education policies that they even defended the universally disliked highly qualified teacher requirement. While I agree we need the best teachers possible in the classroom, who are Federal bureaucrats in Washington to decide what makes you highly qualified? Teachers in southwest Alabama and all across our country agree that the highly qualified teacher provision is simply not effective. Yet my colleagues on the other side and their special interest buddies refuse to give up power and allow us to move in a different direction.

It is time for the Federal Government to get some humility. Washington bureaucrats don't know how to educate our children, but local superintendents, school boards, teachers, and principals do, so let's empower them. It is time we restored local control over education policy and put power in the hands of those who know our students best. Let's put the focus on the student for once, and that is exactly what this act does.

I think the President may be on to something. We shouldn't continue with the same, failed education policy that has failed us for decades. We should get away from this centralized approach to education, which has failed the students throughout America. Mr. Speaker, the Student Success Act offers that new approach.

I urge the leadership of this House to bring the Student Success Act to the floor for a vote, and let's empower parents and local education leaders. For once, let's put the students first.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Black History Month and to pay tribute to two important African Americans from Alabama's First Congressional District.

While researching the history of some of my predecessors, I discovered that two of the earliest African Americans to serve in Congress actually represented the First Congressional District. Mr. Benjamin S. Turner served in the House of Representatives from 1871 to 1873, and Mr. Jeremiah Haralson served in the House from 1875 to 1877. I believe it is very fitting that we take time to recognize the lasting impact these individuals had on our area, but more importantly the influence they had on our nation.

Both Mr. Turner and Mr. Haralson were born into slavery and not provided a quality education. These men did not let slavery stop them from becoming educated, as both men worked hard to self-educate. After being freed from slavery, Mr. Turner and Mr. Haralson followed different paths to Congress. Mr. Turner became a successful businessman in south Alabama and was elected tax collector and councilman in Dallas County, Alabama. Mr. Haralson worked as a farmer and a minister before being elected to the Alabama State House of Representatives and later the Alabama State Senate. Both men would go on to represent the First Congressional District in Congress as Republicans, the same seat I now hold.

Mr. Speaker, these men serve as a great example and an important reminder about our nation's history. These men remind us of the great American ideal that each and every person, regardless of the color of their skin, should have an opportunity to achieve their dreams. Thanks to the dedication and persistence of men like Mr. Turner and Mr. Haralson, today there are 46 black lawmakers serving in the 114th Congress, including the first-ever female, black Republican.

So during Black History Month, I encourage all Americans to take time to reflect on the past because looking to the past is the only true way to really understand common humanity. Let us remember the impact of Representatives Turner and Haralson and the countless other African Americans from Southwest Alabama who have made a lasting impact on our cities, states, and country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 596.

By now, we have heard all the stories. From canceled plans to higher deductibles to longer wait times at your doctor, ObamaCare is full of broken promises. Everywhere I go in southwest Alabama, I hear a different story about how this law is having a negative impact on families, small businesses, doctors, and hospitals.

The problems aren't just in Alabama. Nationwide studies show that under ObamaCare, individual premiums have gone up by an average of 49 percent and deductibles have skyrocketed for the average American family to the point where many people can't afford to pay their deductibles. How is that affordable?

Even worse, only 7 percent of Americans believe that this health care law will reduce their health care costs. Seven percent--that is astonishing.

I don't believe ObamaCare can be fixed through piecemeal reforms. I think the only way to truly get rid of this harmful law is to repeal ObamaCare in its entirety. For the first time, Republicans now have control of the Senate, and Senate Democrats can no longer stand in the way of having this legislation brought up for a vote.

This also marks the first full repeal vote since the law has been in implementation. Right now, American families are sitting around their kitchen table to do their taxes and realizing yet another area where this law has caused a confusing maze of requirements that must be properly navigated in order to avoid government penalties. And we have been told that millions of Americans will have to pay penalties.

We were told we would like the law once we found out what was in it. The opposite has proven to be true. We were told that we could keep our health care plans and keep our family physicians. That is also not true. The more we learn about this law, the less it makes sense.

Today's vote is not just about getting rid of ObamaCare, it is about charting an appropriate path forward.

My legislation instructs the appropriate House committees to move forward with alternative solutions to improve our health care system based on patient-centered reforms that aren't run by the Federal Government. I look forward to being a part of that process.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to champion this legislation on behalf of families in southwest Alabama and all across America who have been negatively impacted by this law, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 596.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip of this House, who has not just traveled around his district talking to people harmed by this law but has traveled around the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee and a new Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop),

another new Member of this body and another new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, who brings a unique experience to this body.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), another new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee and new Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), a new Member of the House, who is himself a dentist.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a colleague of ours and a distinguished veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), another freshman in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), another freshman Member and a gentleman who brings great experience to his position in this House.

I am, and I reserve the balance of my time for closing.

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

In closing, I have been listening carefully to the debate today. We have heard a lot from both sides, but at the end of the day, this is not about anybody in this House; this is about the American people. This is about something that is so very fundamentally important to them--their health care.

We took away the health care system that worked for 80 percent of the people of this country to fix a problem that we today know we fix for only 1 percent of the American people. Only 3 million new Americans have gotten on this new health care plan who didn't have health insurance before. That is 1 percent of the American people. We threw out the health care plan that worked for 80 percent of Americans to fix a problem for 1 percent of Americans.

Look what it has done.

It has wrecked lives. I have here from my office a sampling of emails and letters, which don't include the phone calls from people who came up to me in the over 30 town hall meetings I did last year--women with tears in their eyes because they couldn't pay their health insurance, because they couldn't pay the deductibles when they went to the doctor or the hospital; a man who forwent going to get a particular type of surgery he needed because he couldn't pay the deductible. That is what this law has done to the people of America. It has victimized the people of America.

There is no way to fix this law. It is fundamentally flawed. We could go in and fix a problem piecemeal here and find a piecemeal resolution there. We would end up with another Frankenstein. The American people don't want Frankenstein. They don't want Groundhog Day either. They don't want the President to continue to throw stuff at them over and over again that doesn't work. They deserve a health care system that they control with their doctors, picking the health insurance programs that they want, that are not mandated by the Federal Government and that fit into their budgets. It empowers them instead of having their power taken away by some faceless bureaucracy in Washington.

Let's repeal this terrible ObamaCare law. Let's put in place a process that will give us a solution, one that works for people and what they really need. Let's get on with the business that we are here to do in order to make lives better for the American people.

I thank the majority leader, and I thank the Speaker, and I thank the whip for bringing this bill to the floor. I thank them for allowing my bill to be the one to be the package that we use today, and I ask all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight an important occasion, the creation of the modern-day United States Coast Guard (USCG). The important designation was made official by President Woodrow Wilson on January 28, 1915, when he signed into law the ``Act to Create the Coast Guard,'' merging the Revenue Cutter Service with the U.S. Life-Saving Service.

The origins of the present-day Coast Guard can be traced back to August 4, 1790, when President George Washington signed the Tariff Act to empower ten United States ships to enforce trade laws and reduce smuggling. The USCG is one of the oldest organizations of the federal government and was the only armed force patrolling the seas until the Navy Department was established in 1798.

Over its long and storied history, the USCG has acquired various responsibilities from maintaining the country's tools for maritime navigation to handling merchant marine licensing and merchant vessel safety. Additionally, the USCG is the nation's frontline of defense from threats at sea and is dedicated to saving lives, one of its most important functions.

Mr. Speaker, I come from an area that truly understands the important work the Coast Guard does on a daily basis. Mobile, Alabama, located in my Congressional district, is home to the Guard Aviation Training Center and also the USCG Sector Mobile Base. The Aviation Center acts as the Coast Guard's aviation and capabilities development center and also conducts traditional Coast Guard air station missions including search and rescue, homeland security, and environmental protection.

I am proud of all the brave men and women who serve in this essential organization, and I encourage all Americans to take some time to reflect on the sacrifices these people have made for our great country.

I thank my colleague, the gentleman, and I thank you for the time, but I thank you most of all for your service to the people of your community and what you have done for them and your proxy for hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers that do that day in and day out, and we take them for granted.

I am glad you brought up the subject of families because we sometimes forget that these law enforcement officers have families. They have husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and friends.

Literally, when they go out every day, those people and their family and their friends are not certain they will come back. How many of us, when we go off to work, our family and friends think, ``Well, he may not come back''? What a terrible thing that must be, how difficult that is for the family.

My grandfather was a sheriff in Mobile County in Alabama in the twenties and thirties. I wasn't alive during that point in time, but I remember my father telling stories about that.

When his father would go out at night and they had to do things on patrol or to go out and apprehend somebody who committed a crime and how upset it would leave him as a child thinking: Where is my dad going? Is he going to be okay? We take that for granted, but the families don't take that for granted because they have to live with it day in and day out.

We so often think of law enforcement officers in terms of how they relate to a criminal. Well, oftentimes, the most important person or persons they are relating with are victims.

They are the protectors--in some cases, the saviors--of victims, people who are getting ready to be hurt by a criminal, and--but for a law enforcement officer--they would be hurt and maybe even killed.

Those law enforcement officers rush into an inherently dangerous situation to keep those people from harm and maybe even save them from death. It may be a phone call that goes to 911 in the dead of night, a woman screaming into the phone: My husband has a gun, and he is going to use it against me.

A law enforcement officer is dispensed to that environment, not knowing in that highly emotionally charged moment whether that gun is going to be used on him or the person he has come to save.

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, law enforcement officers find a way to

defuse that situation. No one is hurt, the person that is about to commit a crime is apprehended and charged with a crime less than actually hurting somebody, but a person has been saved; a person has been saved from harm or perhaps death.

If you have ever been in that moment and been someone who has been a victim, when a law enforcement officer comes up and saves you in that moment, you realize that but for those law enforcement officers who do that day in and day out, we could all be victims of a horrible crime, and we take that for granted.

My wife, Rebecca, and I were victims of a violent crime. We were stopped one night by three young men who tried to rob us. They had a knife and said they had a gun. My wife was pregnant. They took our jewelry and then threw her to the ground which could have not only hurt her, but hurt the baby.

Fortunately, some of the people involved with the main perpetrator realized it was time to run, and as they did, we could scream out. As we screamed out, neighbors called the police. They came very quickly.

I can tell you when you are in that moment and you feel that sense of fear because people have weapons that they want to use against you and they have already used physical violence against you, when that squad car comes up and the man or men or women in uniform step out, you feel safe.

When they step out of that squad car, they are not safe because they have to go out. Their official duty is to try to apprehend that person and do whatever it takes to protect the rest of us. We take that for granted, and we should never, ever take that for granted.

Mr. Speaker, last year, over 100 law enforcement officers in the United States lost their lives in the line of duty. So far in this young year in the United States already, nine law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty.

One of them was lost last night in my home county, Baldwin County, Alabama, a police officer--a fine police officer--with the city of Loxley, and we take that for granted. He got in his car at the beginning of the day, kissed his wife, went to work, and didn't come home.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we in America can use times like this to remember what we gain from people who put on the uniform of law enforcement to serve us and to protect us. ``Serve and protect,'' that is the motto.

All of us tonight, millions of us as Americans tonight will go to bed, will put our heads on that pillow, and will go to sleep safe, knowing that these men and women are patrolling the streets of our country to keep danger away from us.

Before we go to sleep every night, perhaps we should do one more thing: let's say a little prayer for those men and women who patrol the streets of our country to protect all of us and maintain the quality of life that we all too often take for granted.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this time tonight, your service to your community and to our country, and hope you will continue to remind us in the days to come of what we owe to the men and women that wear law enforcement uniforms throughout America.

I thank the gentlemen from Florida and Illinois. Those were eloquent words spoken from the heart, because I know both of these gentleman mean everything they just said.

Last night was an interesting moment for me. One of the President's big plays is this proposal regarding community colleges.

Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I am the first person in my family to go to college. Both of my parents grew up during the Depression. There wasn't any money for college, but I was privileged to go to college. During the time that I went, my parents were not doing well financially. Like very many other people, I was a financial aid student.

We didn't have Pell grants back then. You got Federal student loans and maybe a Federal student work-study job. Lots and lots of people in my generation did that. I don't ever complain about that because that is the best money I ever borrowed and the best work I ever did because it gave me the opportunity to do what I have done in life. But it also taught me how important it is to give people an opportunity for a real education so that they can move up in their lives.

This May, the last of my four children will finish college. We have had somebody in college in my family since 2003. I have been writing those tuition checks, fees, et cetera. So I look at this also from the point of view of someone who has had to be there writing those checks, sending their young people to college. But I am also the former chancellor of post-secondary education for the State of Alabama. It was my job to be the CEO of Alabama's 2-year college system, the community colleges for the State of Alabama. And so I bring a certain level of experience and expertise to this issue that may be a little different from others in this body.

When the President first proposed this, his office just gave us a heads up. It didn't check and say, Do you think this is a good idea? Given your background, do you think this is something we can do? He said, This is what we're going to do.

Our first question we asked was, How much will it cost? The initial answer we got from the White House was, We don't know how much it's going to cost. Now that should cause us all to ask a question about how serious this proposal is when, in the very first instance that they decide that they are going to propose it, they can't even tell us how much it costs. Even after they decided how much they think it is going to cost--$60 billion--they couldn't tell us how they were going to pay for it.

So it led me to ask this question: Is this a serious idea? Because, you see, over a third of our community college students in America are already on Federal Pell grants, which cover all--or virtually all--of their tuition and fee costs when they go to community college. And for the people that don't have the eligibility to get Pell grants, there are a combination of other things that they can get.

My experience as somebody who ran a community college system was that covering tuition and fees was usually not the real problem most community college students face. Most of them face a more difficult problem, and that is they are not adequately academically prepared or they have other problems in their lives, whether it is from their homes or jobs or whatever. It is hard for them to stay in college and stay up with the work that they have got to do. And so they need a lot of extra help. And the President doesn't talk about that.

Now here is the worst thing about this proposal. We heard a lot last night from the President of the United States that he was all about the middle class. Let me tell you one of the taxes that he is going to raise that is going to pay for these proposals. He is going to tax 529 plans.

For people that don't know what those are, 529 plans are savings accounts, essentially, that moms and

dads and grandmoms and granddads put money in over time and they use that money that they saved over time to put their young people through college. And the good thing about that is while they pay taxes on the money that they make before they put it into the plans, if, when they take the money out of those plans, there has been some appreciation--it has gone from being this much money to that much money--they don't have to pay taxes on it.

It is an incentive for them. It is a way for middle class people to save for college for their young people. It is the only way middle class people in this country have a real savings plan for the young people. And this President, who stood up right behind me last night and talked about being for the middle class, wants to tax those middle class savings plans and take them away from people. Twelve million people use those plans in this country, 12 million people like my parents, like my wife and me, and like many, many other people in America. They shouldn't have their plans taxed.

So I say to my colleagues from Florida and Illinois, if you look at just that one part of what he proposed, it is hard to say he was serious. Because if he really cares about higher education in America, he would think about the other needs of these community college students. But most importantly, he would think about those 12 million parents that are saving for their young people, middle class people whom he is trying to take money away from with this proposed tax.

I think that sort of gives you a flavor of my appreciation of that one part of what he said last night.

That is an important point because when you look at education, there are different parts of it. Each part serves its own special need. The 4-year colleges are different from the 2-year colleges, and they are different from high schools, et cetera. So there is a role that each of them play, but sometimes we start fuzzing them together and we miss the importance of each one of them.

I think there will be some negative effects on 4-year colleges. I already heard from some 4-year college people about that. They don't want to pick on the 2-year colleges because they don't want to be seen to do that, but they understand there could be some negative effects.

But the point you and the gentleman from Florida were making that is even more important to this, these are mainly local and State decisions. The Federal Government is inserting itself in things that traditionally, under our Federal understanding of government, the Federal Government didn't get involved in.

I talked to our colleagues in this House from the State of Tennessee, Democrat and Republican, and said, What do you think about us taking your Tennessee plan and nationalizing it? They said, We think it's a bad idea. We are proud of our Tennessee plan. We think it's a good plan. We're proud that our State is doing it.

It is one thing to talk about it from a State level--I understand they have one in Chicago at the local level--but it is different when you blow it up to be a national thing.

So the President wants to take this good idea from a single State or a single city and blow it up into a national thing, and we are not really stoked here to do that. We don't really understand how to do that.

Here is what happens now: we send the money out. And what happens after we send the money? Rules and regulations and mandates come flowing down after it, and Washington starts telling Tennessee and Illinois and Florida and Alabama how to run our colleges. And that, my friends, is a very bad idea. I don't think anybody in higher education wants the heavy hand of the Federal Government telling us how to run our institutions of higher education.

Let me end on this one point. America is known as having the best institutions of higher education in the world. And the reason we do is because each one of our institutions is different from one another. They specialize in who they are and they focus on quality. And if we start robbing that from them by trying to stamp some one-size-fits-all concept of higher education, which the President is trying to do right now with this rating system he wants to put on higher education, then we may start losing in an area in which we are the preeminent leader in the world. And I don't think the people of Alabama sent me here to let the Federal Government do that to the fine institutions of higher education we have in the State of Alabama.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am on the Armed Services Committee, and I look at border security as national security.

Let me give you a story from a trip that several of us on the Armed Services Committee took to the Middle East back in August and September. We visited several countries over there. As you know, it is a very dangerous part of the world, clearly.

One of the countries we went to is Morocco. Morocco, if you think about where it is, should have lots of problems, but you don't really hear much about Morocco having terrorist incidents. When we were over there, we asked a lot of questions. How is that so?

It is because they take their border security very seriously. They use a lot of the military aid that America provides to Morocco for their border security, and they keep the bad guys out, and so you don't hear in this country that is in some of the most troubled parts of the world, you don't hear about the problems there because they control their borders. They understand that their internal and national security is dependent upon that.

We had two brothers, the Tsarnaev brothers, who grew up in Boston. One of them was allowed to go back to where they were from and one of the satellite countries from Russia--obviously was trained by terrorists.

We allowed him to come back into this country, after we were warned by the Russians where he had gone, and he and his brother tragically ignited those bombs at the Boston Marathon, seriously wounding a lot of people and killing some.

Well, what sort of a security situation do we have that we allowed him back into this country? What sort of security situation do we have today?

This is not just about the southern border; it is about the northern border. It is about our security of the entire Nation, and if we will start looking at border security as national security, which is the way we on this side of the aisle understand this issue, then we can protect the American people.

It definitely does take us working with the President because he runs the Department of Homeland Security through his appointee to that Secretary's position, and it is his policies through that Department that determine whether or not we are going to be protected, and protecting our borders is a part of protecting Americans from international terrorism, including international Islamic terrorism.

Madam Speaker, just last month, we made a promise to the American people. We promised our constituents that we would fight the Obama administration's decision to give executive amnesty to many of those in this country illegally.

I am pleased to announce that this week the House will fulfill that promise and act to defund the illegal executive action. All last year, we strongly urged the President not to act alone, and the American people spoke clearly in last November's election, but the President forged ahead anyway.

Now, in order to preserve our Nation's longstanding system of checks and balances to preserve the very order of our Constitution, the House will act to rein in President Obama's plans for executive amnesty.

We will vote on legislation, which I was proud to cosponsor, written by my Alabama colleague, Congressman Robert Aderholt, which would prevent the President from carrying out his plans for executive amnesty.

Let me be clear: this is tough legislation which completely eliminates all funds for implementation of the President's illegal actions. The bill has the support of many leading voices in the immigration debate including my home State Senator, Jeff Sessions.

Just as important, the legislation makes clear that no Federal benefits can be granted to any alien as a result of the policies defunded and also eliminates funds to consider new, renewal, or previously-denied applications for executive amnesty.

The legislation doesn't just defund the President's executive action. The legislation paves the way for stronger border security by increasing funds for border agents, detention beds, and enforcement activities.

In order to halt illegal immigration in this country, we must stop encouraging illegal immigration by offering amnesty and instead put more attention on actually securing our borders.

I wish this legislation wasn't necessary. I wish President Obama had listened to the American people and enforced our current laws instead of continuing his my-way-or-the-highway style of governing; instead, he moved ahead with action that clearly violates our Constitution and has poisoned the well for serious conversation on immigration reform.

Madam Speaker, I must ask a simple question that has very serious consequences: When will it stop? When will President Obama stop issuing shortsighted executive action and instead work together with this Congress to find long-term solutions to the real issues plaguing our country?

I fear that the answer to that question is not promising, given that while we were on this floor taking our oath of office, the White House was busy issuing veto threats.

I understand that the legislative process may not be convenient for the President, but the process exists for a reason. The Congress makes the laws, and the President should enforce them. This President just doesn't get that.

This week, the House will act to rein in the President once again. We will attempt to right the scales of power and restore our constitutional system of checks and balances.

We cannot and we will not sit back idly and allow the President to act alone. We promised the American people we would respond, and this week, we will hold true to our word.

I thank the gentlewoman, both for your time and for your leadership on this very important issue.

As she said, I represent Mobile, Alabama. If you go and look at a map, it is a straight shot north from Havana to Mobile. For over three centuries, Mobile has been a major port for the export of goods and import of goods back and forth between Cuba and the United States. It is in the economic best interest of the people in my district for us to get to the point where we have normalized relations and trade with Cuba.

I should be ardently in favor of this deal that the President is pursuing, but I am not. This is not the time, these are not the circumstances, and--to put it simply--this is not the way to do this.

Let me address the way for a moment. It has been alluded to previously that we have done deals with China and with Vietnam. In both cases, the Presidents involved worked with Congress. That is critically important to whatever success they have had in both of those deals.

In this circumstance, the President has refused to work with Congress. You can't reach the sort of agreement that he is looking for without Congress. You can't have an embassy unless we are willing to pay for it. You can't have an ambassador unless the Senate approves the ambassador.

He is pursuing what, in essence, is an errand that cannot result in success that he is looking for, but he is pursuing it anyway without us because this is just another example of these efforts to make these unilateral, executive-type decisions, leaving Congress to decide to try to keep itself relevant as he becomes a lameduck President. That is no way to do this.

Let me address the circumstances. I can't say it any better than the prior speakers have said it. This is a brutally oppressive regime that cannot change, and until they change, until they put in motion the things that we are talking about for change, I don't see how a country like the United States can seriously engage in negotiations with them.

Most importantly, for me, from my perspective, I serve on the House Armed Services Committee--I don't think I have to tell everybody here the history of this country--this country with this regime in charge allowed the then-Soviet Union to put nuclear missiles aimed at the United States on their soil. They have never apologized for that; they have never renounced that.

As we heard earlier, just a year ago, they were caught redhanded in an arms deal with the North Koreans, who are presently enemies of the United States. What sort of assurance do we have as part of this deal that Cuba is not going to be a staging ground for military activity, terrorist activity, against the people and the security of the United States of America? Nothing, nothing; yet we engaged in this deal, a very bad deal from my perspective--and I don't want to take anything away from the American citizen who we were able to bring back home--but look who we traded in return for that.

It reminds me of the Bergdahl deal we had last year that was so very controversial. This administration doesn't know how to make a good deal. They know how to give everything away and get very little back.

I want to normalize relationships with Cuba. I want us to open up that trade again because it is going to benefit my district.

I am willing to do anything I can to help make that happen, but this country should never give in to people like the Castro brothers until there is a change in that regime, until there is a change in the Government of Cuba, until they renounce their activities that have been against the security of the United States, until we know that we have a good faith trading partner and a good faith partner, period, in this hemisphere.

I look forward to the day when I can stand at the Port of Mobile and welcome goods coming in from Cuba and goods going out from Mobile to Cuba as part of a deal that is made in the right way, under the right circumstances, for the right reason. I hope and pray that that day comes, but that day is not today.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. I look forward to continuing to follow that leadership in the days to come.