Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional group of young men in Pinellas County, Florida, the honor guard at Fuguitt Elementary School in Largo.

Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting with 21 young men of Fuguitt's honor guard who have recognized the importance of respect, discipline, commitment, and speaking out against bullying. These are remarkable young men in third, fourth, and fifth grade.

The honor guard program at Fuguitt was started by former Principal Michael Moss; teacher Rhonda Correa; and her husband, Frank Correa, a Marine Corps veteran. The Correas have continued to lead the program today under the leadership of Fuguitt's principal, Dr. Kathi Bentley.

The purpose of the honor guard is to develop structure, discipline, and leadership in young students who otherwise might face academic or behavioral challenges.

Each student signs the honor guard pledge, which reads: ``As a Fuguitt honor guard member, I am a student leader of this school. As a member, I promise to be truthful, respectful, helpful, and hardworking. I will act like an honorable gentleman and respect and honor the flag of the United States of America. I understand my success is my Nation's success.''

Each day, the honor guard opens the school with the presentation of colors and the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Speaker, the young men committed to this program represent future leaders both in Pinellas County and also in our Nation, and they deserve the recognition and encouragement of this body.

I am honored to recognize Fuguitt Elementary School's honor guard members today: in third grade--Romeo Greene, Sean Lange, Blake Logan, Levita Maafu, Troy Mason, George Mercado, Walit Morton, Daniel Mattrass, Micah Timberlake, and Bryce Young; in fourth grade--Domenic Barclay, Johnnie Chattman, Ari Davis, Matthew Kosinski, and Tyrek Tripp; and in fifth grade--Jon Dameron, Anthony Gonzalez, William Maafu, William Muscu, Steven Suero, and Andra Witchard.

Today, these young men serve as role models to the rest of Fuguitt Elementary School and are held to a high standard, both academically and behaviorally. I rise today to recognize their efforts and commend the leadership at Fuguitt who are committed to the mission to help these students grow into future leaders.

In closing, I would like to share the honor guard's poem that they recited to me at the end of my visit with them. It is a fitting tribute from 21 young men to the exceptionalism of our Nation.

``We are the beacon of light, the hope of mankind, that shining city on a hill, the most beautiful, the most bountiful, the most generous people in the history of the world, the country that has birthed the great titans of science and industry, the country that put a man on the Moon, the country that has liberated tens of millions from the clutches of evil, the home of the brave, the undisputed champion of freedom, the great Republic, the United States of America.''

I thank the Fuguitt honor guard for serving as an inspiration to so many, including to this Member of Congress.

May God bless each of them and their families, and may God bless these United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strongest support for the invitation to have Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address this body and to express my personal support for the Speaker's invitation.

Congress is a coequal branch. The Constitution acknowledges that. It establishes that. To suggest, as some have, that this body does not have a role in the geopolitical and diplomatic strategy of this Nation is flatly wrong.

This body, this Congress, funds our diplomatic activities. We, this body, this Congress, funds our military activities. And this body authorizes the use of military force, as acknowledged by the President just today with his delivery of a request for an authorization to use military force.

This body, this Congress, authorizes sanctions. And this body has expressed strong support in recent years for additional sanctions on Iran. We have a disagreement with the President, very respectfully, on this issue. But to suggest that this body, this Congress, this coequal branch, established by article I of the Constitution, should simply lay down its responsibility because the President of the United States suggested during the State of the Union that he will veto any additional sanctions we pass would be a dereliction of the duty of this body, of this Congress.

That is why we have expressed our interest and we have said to the President that we do want to hear from our greatest ally in the Middle East to express our position of how to secure the region. It is appropriate. We are a coequal branch.

At a time when the President continues negotiations with Iran over the objections of so many in this body, at a time when the administration has had to acknowledge--forced to acknowledge a secret letter to Iran, it is appropriate for this body to stand up, and it is appropriate for this body to suggest that we stand with Israel perhaps in a way that the President does not.

This body, this House, this Member, we welcome the Prime Minister here in March. We look forward to hearing his vision, the vision of our greatest ally in the region, on securing peace in the Middle East, providing for the stability of the Middle East, securing democracy, and to say with the people of Israel that we stand with you in providing for your security.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity tonight to address a very important matter regarding the role of the Congress. And I would associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from New York (Mr. Tonko) about the role that this body plays in trade but also the role that this body plays in foreign policy and matters of diplomacy.

Every American watches the news each day. We all see the same stories, be it ISIS, be it terror around the globe. We know that we, as a nation, are engaged against a threat that, left unchecked, could cause great harm to our homeland and to American interests abroad. We also have heard in recent news the conversation about the Prime Minister of Israel addressing our Nation.

We have seen the President's negotiations with Cuba, the President's negotiations with Iran, and it begs the question: What is the role of Congress in all of these matters, in these matters of foreign policy and foreign affairs?

So I appreciate the opportunity tonight to discuss a view of our side of the aisle and many in this Congress. I will be joined by my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) shortly to specifically talk about the role that Congress provides in setting the direction of our Nation's foreign policy.

This body is a coequal branch. We are established under article I of the Constitution, just as the administration is established under article II. We are coequal branches.

This body, most every American knows, has the authority to declare war. This body does, this Congress does. We fund our diplomatic activities. We fund our military activities. We authorize the use of military force, as was affirmed by the President today in sending such a request to this body to ask for the constitutional affirmation of this body, of this Congress. And we do so routinely.

So when we come across events where sometimes people question why Congress would inject itself into matters of national security, into matters of foreign affairs, let's revisit why and the important role that Congress has served.

This body, this Congress rejected the President's negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and 1920. This body rejected the President's negotiation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999. This body did that, reflecting the will of our constituents, of this Nation. This body, very importantly, investigated the Iran-Contra affair. This body investigated the intelligence activities related to 9/11. This body investigated the events of 2011 in Libya.

We have the authority of the purse as well, as spending originates in this body. We have used that authority to limit the transfer of detainees at Guantanamo, over the objection of the President.

We have used the constitutional authority of this body in matters of foreign aid and, at times, withholding foreign aid. Following the capture of Osama bin Laden and questions about Pakistan's role, this body responded by putting restrictions on that foreign aid. And, yes, this body provides billions to Israel as a matter of not only protecting the security of Israel but furthering our national security in the Middle East.

So it is appropriate then to raise questions very respectfully and in a way that reflects our constitutional responsibility of the President's decisions at times. We are one Nation. We are united in providing for the security of our country, but sometimes we have different ideas. And it is okay to raise questions on the President's decisions.

Consider the President's recent actions and the concerns of this body over the negotiations to return Bowe Bergdahl that involved the release of five prisoners from Guantanamo, in contravention of a law passed by this Congress and signed by the President. He provided no notice of that.

We know that this President sent a secret letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran during a time of critical negotiations that many of us have concerns about and during a time when many of us have asked for additional sanctions on Iran, not fewer sanctions.

We know this President has attempted to negotiate with the Castro regime to normalize relations in Cuba.

We know that the President sent a message to Putin just before his last election, saying, If you just give me time and wait until after the election, I will have more flexibility. He delivered that message to the Russian President.

So it is okay that those of us in this body have raised those questions.

The President has the authority to do most of what I just said, although I object to his no notice in the Bowe Bergdahl case. But we also have the authority to provide oversight and to exert our role in this.

So how do we do that? We do that in three or four areas that are very ripe right now for conversation, for debate, and in a way that attracts the attention and the interest of our constituents, of the American people that send us here to represent them.

We saw today the President's request for an Authorization for Use of Military Force. I appreciate the President sending that request to this Congress. I believe we should have done that last September. I was one of a few Members of Congress who signed my name onto an Authorization for Use of Military Force that we introduced last Congress prior to the President sending his resolution to this body. I believe we had a constitutional responsibility to do that, as this body, to ask: Are we a nation at war? And if so, are we willing to incur the sacrifice necessary to win that war?

I am encouraged that the President today, during his press conference, said that by working with the Congress and by negotiating on the language that we can make this resolution even stronger. And I think we will see that. I hope we will see that in the coming weeks and the coming months.

The language in the Authorization for Use of Military Force that prohibits no enduring offensive ground troops I think causes much consternation for many in this body. Are we really going to pass a resolution that restricts the tools of our own warfare when it comes to providing for the national security of the United States?

The President will have his opportunity to make his case. This body will have our opportunity to make that case as well.

Limiting or sunsetting the authorization to 3 years I think is something that we should begin to talk about. It is okay for us to have to revisit a responsible Authorization for Use of Military Force in 3 years so that we don't find ourselves with a President years from now relying on an authorization that can be 10, 11, or 12 years old. We need to have that debate in this body and represent our view of how we respond to ISIS because the President's view has created much concern.

We saw at the National Prayer Breakfast that he suggested that the foundation of our response to ISIS needed to start with our own humility, by looking at our own history.

I appreciate the academic conversation the President would like to have on that. But that sentiment, in itself, compromises our own national security, in my opinion, because it suggests that we first must look inward before responding to what is a pending national security threat, a threat to our homeland and a threat to our national interests.

We need to have a debate whether or not we believe that an air campaign is sufficient. For the President to suggest that no ground troops will be required, that somehow that is a way of providing for the safety of our men and women in uniform, ignores the very risk of those who will be engaging in a dangerous air campaign and will continue to do so every day. And what happens if we lose one of our pilots? What happens if one of our pilots is captured, like the Jordanian pilot that was captured and, as we all saw, the tragic end that he met? Are we, as a nation, prepared to respond and rescue? Are we going to put boots on the ground? Should we put boots on the ground? That is a debate we need to have.

None of us are advocating for an extended war. None of us are advocating for putting men and women in harm's way. But if we are going to engage, as a nation, with our partners to defeat a threat to the United States, we need to have an honest debate about how we do that and not start the debate by restricting how we intend to do that.

We also have a role in the future of Guantanamo. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 654, which would prevent the President of the United States from handing over our naval base at Guantanamo to the Cuban regime without congressional approval. This is very different from the debate over the future of the prison and very different from the debate over the transfer of detainees.

Mr. Speaker, this simply says that we, as the United States, have a naval station 90 miles off our shore, and when Raul Castro demands that we return that to the Cuban people and pay reparations to the Cuban Government as terms of negotiation, my legislation says, No, Mr. President, you may not do that without coming to this body to ask for authorization. Certainly, I would not lend my vote to that.

I was pleased to hear testimony in the other body, in the Senate, when the administration said that is not a matter they would consider, but as we have seen in the President's negotiations in the past, it gives us reason to pause.

My legislation would simply codify the restriction that says that the Guantanamo Naval Base may not be returned to the Cuban people without congressional approval.

Finally, we do have a role in inviting a foreign leader to address this body, Prime Minister Netanyahu. It is fully appropriate as a coequal branch of this government to invite and to ask for Netanyahu to address us about his vision of security in the region, his vision of peace in the region--his vision of security--and also his vision of the current negotiations with Iran.

No Member of this body should shy away from receiving an address from the Prime Minister of Israel. We should stand resolute--Republicans, Independents, and Democrats--and be here for that address and not insult the Prime Minister and the people of Israel by turning it into a political game of boycotting an address by the Prime Minister.

We should be here showing our support for the security of Israel, for the people of Israel, and, yes, for the Prime Minister's leadership. This is appropriate. We can disagree with the administration without being disagreeable.

As we engage in oversight, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we continue this dialogue, and we do, as the President very respectfully suggested, and I want to thank him again for the tone of his remarks today when he said he hopes the AUMF can be better by working with the Congress.

I would ask for the same of the administration when our Speaker steps out and invites Prime Minister Netanyahu because it represents the interests of this body when it comes to Israel and to the current negotiation with Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined this evening to discuss this further by a fine colleague of mine in this body, Representative Rodney Davis from Illinois.

I thank my colleague. Let's, for a moment, stay on the topic of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

One of the reasons we take to the floor is to make sure that the voices are heard from all over the political spectrum. As the media and some in this body have gained the attention of the media by suggesting that the Prime Minister shouldn't attend, it is important for those of us who believe he should to take time to discuss why that is.

Most people know and understand--but some people don't--the significance of our partnership with Israel and what it means in one of the most volatile regions of the world.

This is a nation that has committed to democracy, to peace, to freedom, to representation, and to security; and they are doing so in an incredibly volatile region. All that they have asked of the United States over the years is that we stand with them in their own courage to promote peace, security, and freedom of their own people.

I would say, as I mentioned earlier, for those who have chosen not to attend, I certainly respect that decision, but I think it sends a message that is wrong to say not just to the people of Israel, but to the Prime Minister himself.

Not only is there a political message trying to be delivered by those that don't attend, but there is also this notion that, somehow, those of us in this body better understand the internal politics in Israel better than the elected leaders.

Why should we not trust that Prime Minister Netanyahu understands what is best for his nation? Why should we try to suggest that we know better than Prime Minister Netanyahu what is right for Israel and for the people of Israel? To suggest otherwise is demeaning both to the Prime Minister, as well as to the people of Israel.

I look forward to the Prime Minister's address, and I think this body, as we make decisions both about Iran sanctions but also about our aid to the people of Israel, I think this body has an opportunity to learn from the Prime Minister and to understand the issue better as we begin to make decisions.

I look forward to the Prime Minister's address to this body.

I yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments.

It can't be lost in this conversation about the pending address from the Prime Minister. As we mentioned, the security of Israel in a very volatile region, it is a region that is the center of much of the presence of ISIS.

As we often see the political debate, the TV commentary, and the radio commentary about how we define ISIS, the fact is that if we are not willing to define our enemy, we will never defeat our enemy. We know that we face a threat, an organization that has declared war on us, and we don't get to choose the threats we face as a nation. We certainly wish we could. We only get to choose how we respond to those threats.

The President's submittal of an AUMF request today is the right one. This body, I think, can have a very respectful debate about the terms of how we confront ISIS, about the authority, the authorization that we want to provide this administration for how he engages.

I think the most critical thing we can do, though, is not tie the hands of our men and women in uniform and the leadership of our Department of Defense as they make decisions how to execute our campaign against this radical organization.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I want to associate myself with my colleague's remarks and simply close with this. It is important to revisit the context of how we brought this up tonight. We are one nation. The President, the Congress, we are united as Americans, as elected officials of this country, to protect the national security of the United States.

The point of tonight's Special Order is that just as the President exercises his article II authority, this body also has a responsibility to exercise our article I authority, and that is okay. That is why we have the greatest republic that has ever been on the face of this Earth. Because we can have these debates in a constructive way between a President with one view of how to respond, a Congress with another, but know every day that we as a nation, the President and this body, are resolved to eradicate the threat of ISIS from the face of this Earth. We will do that.

As I mentioned, just as the President asks us to consider an authorization to use military force, we must also ask

the President to understand our interest in how this war to defeat ISIS is executed. And on issues of Iran, Cuba, and others, we will work together. We will have our differences and disagreements, but we remain one United States resolved to protect the security of our interests.

I look forward to a very healthy debate on these issues in the coming months.

I yield to Mr. Davis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Washington.

I rise today to join my colleagues in paying tribute to law enforcement, recognizing their service each and every day.

I had an opportunity a few weeks ago on this floor to thank and to recognize my local law enforcement community, law enforcement officers, law enforcement leadership from Pinellas County, Florida--the cities of St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Tarpon Springs, and others--and, with Tarpon Springs, remember an officer who our community lost just 4 days before Christmas, Officer Charles Kondek, whose end of watch was December 21, leaving behind a family and children.

We can pay tribute--which we should and which the vast majority of Americans do every day--but we also are a Congress who must offer solutions and who must act. One of the ways in which we can act is to ensure, just as we do for our men and women of the military, that our law enforcement have the tools and technology necessary to do their job.

While much of local law enforcement is, indeed, funded locally, there is a program--the 1033 program that has been debated so much during this past year--that provides equipment, protective equipment, tools, and technology for our law enforcement officers to do their job. That is a Federal program that should not be controversial.

I have introduced legislation--because we are a solutions-oriented Congress--to continue the 1033 program, but to simply require one thing to address the concerns of so many, and that requirement is that local law enforcement leadership certify before receiving equipment that they have officers trained and capable of using the equipment.

It is very simple. This is equipment that our local law enforcement officers need, and, frankly, if it is not available to them through the 1033 program, they will purchase it as required by their local force, and it will cost local taxpayers the money to do so.

Here is the importance of this legislation. It says two things. First, it says that this Congress, your Representatives, want to do our part to provide for the safety of our law enforcement officers, but, secondly, subscribe to this radical notion that should not be controversial: we trust our local law enforcement leadership to set the right policing tone and to provide for the safety of their communities while they also provide for the safety of law enforcement officers that risk their lives every day, officers like Charles Kondek.

I would encourage this Congress, as we continue to look for ways not just to pay tribute to law enforcement officers, but to support the work they do every day, to consider this legislation that ensures this program will continue to provide tools and technology to law enforcement officers and says: You know what, we, as a Congress, trust our law enforcement leadership back home because they know best how to provide for the safety of our communities, how to set the tone of policing in our communities, and how to protect our law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Washington having this Special Order and allowing me time this evening.

Mr. Speaker, this past December, the community of Pinellas County, Florida--indeed, the Nation--lost an American hero, William M. Allen.

Bill Allen was 83 years old and had served in the United States Army from 1949 to 1953 as a sergeant, Charlie Company, 19th Infantry Regiment, 24th Infantry Division.

Mr. Allen was a prisoner of war from January 1, 1951, until August 1953, held captive during the Korean war after being overcome by Chinese troops. Mr. Allen was just 19 years old at the time.

To those who knew Mr. Allen, he was one of those remarkable people that left a lasting impression on you after just a single encounter. He was a patriot. He would share his stories not for his own attention, but to impart on each of us the story of sacrifice that our men and women in uniform make so that the United States--all Americans--might live in peace, protected by those who serve.

Mr. Allen's story was most human. In his own words, he wrote this about his enlistment in the Army and subsequent deployment:

Then there are people like myself, the little guy who went

to Korea as a young kid, still wet behind the ears, fresh out

of high

school, who joined a peacetime army, but soon found himself

in one of this country's most controversial military and

political situations known at that time.

When it was over, we came home as veterans; no longer were

we the kids down the street. We were now that guy home from

war, the war that only a very few knew very much about, a war

that was unpopular, and a war that was soon to be forgotten,

forgotten only by those who didn't have to fight it.

Mr. Allen did fight that war for us, and his sacrifice truly became real the day he knew he had been overcome by Chinese forces. He recalls wondering at that very moment would they shoot him, and in those brief moments, Mr. Allen recalled that he knew then that the course for his life would forever change. Two things he said he knew for sure: one, he was still alive; and, two, he was now a prisoner of war.

Indeed, the course of Mr. Allen's life had changed forever. He endured many terrible moments as a POW. His family endured much grief, much worry, much pain; but his life had also changed forever because Mr. Allen would later find another calling in life, that of teaching others the importance of service, teaching about the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, sharing with others the true cost of freedom.

He would share these lessons with anyone he would encounter, but he also did something very special. He contributed many of his personal items from the war--letters, telegrams, newspaper articles--to the Armed Forces History Museum in Largo, Florida, for a permanent display dedicated to his POW story. Moreover, he then volunteered his time to teach young people at the museum the very lessons of service, to share with visitors his deeply personal story.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Allen served our Nation in war, but he then served his community here at home, passing down a rich legacy to generations that follow. I was one of those individuals who had an opportunity to share in that story, and I am blessed by my experiences with Mr. Allen.

For his military service, Mr. Allen was awarded many medals, including the Combat Infantry Badge, the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, and others.

Mr. Allen is survived by his wife, Helen, of whom he once wrote:

If she was not with me, I don't know what I would have

done. She was not only my wife, but she is my best friend.

Mr. Allen is also survived by his children, Susan and Bill, and many grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, before Mr. Allen's passing, he presented me with a copy of his book, ``My Old Box of Memories,'' and inscribed on the inside jacket is his message, ``Freedom is not free.'' Indeed, we know freedom is not free.

Today, I rise to remember and honor Mr. Allen, to remember and honor his legacy, a legacy that will live on through the many people he has touched and, most importantly, through individuals, children, and youth that he devoted his time to educating about the cost of war, the importance of sacrifice, and the dignity of service.

I thank Mr. Allen today for his service to our Nation and to pay a most fitting tribute, that for a man who sacrificed so much on behalf of our Nation, today is remembered in the well of this House--the people's House--by Members of Congress and by a grateful Nation.

May God bless Bill Allen; may God bless his wife, Helen; may God bless his family; and may God richly bless each and every American who today serves and protects and defends the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House and to address the country this afternoon and to do so with colleagues of mine from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and from Illinois (Mr. Davis) to draw a contrast between the view of government represented by our side of the aisle and of that which we heard last night from our President, a President who seemingly ignored the will of the people as expressed by the ballot box in November and who, instead, doubled down on an agenda that we believe on our side of the aisle is the wrong view of government and the wrong direction for our Nation. So I rise with my colleagues today to talk about just a few of the very substantive points and to do so very constructively and to present why we have a different view of government and why we think that is important.

I would start by suggesting this. If we think about what the President said last night, in his words, the President declared from the rostrum that no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. Now, I understand the sympathetic position on climate change. I am from a coastal State, and, frankly, I am a member of the Republican Party who believes that, indeed, the climate is changing, but I do not believe that the greatest challenge facing our future generations is that of climate change.

In fact, you can harken back to the words of Thomas Jefferson. He had a very different opinion than our President had last night. He said that public debt is the greatest of dangers for our Nation to fear. I would suggest that Jefferson was right, that the greatest threat to our future generations is actually economic security and domestic security. I would like to speak for just a couple of moments about that and allow my colleagues to talk about other portions of the President's remarks.

Let's first talk about the long-term threat to our economic security--our national debt--a topic that was completely ignored in the President's address to the Nation last night.

Understand the significance of where we sit historically when it comes to the national debt. When this President took office, our national debt was just over $10 trillion, meaning it had taken 220 years for our Republic--220 years--to accumulate just over $10 trillion in debt, a number already far too high. In the 8 years of this administration, an additional $10 trillion will be added under this President's watch. When he leaves his office, our debt will be over $20 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, that is a threat to our national security. The greatest threat, perhaps, to our national security, arguably, could be unwatched, out-of-control spending and debt that ultimately collapses our economic system and ensures that we are no longer the world's greatest superpower. In fact, George Washington, himself, admonished that we have a moral obligation to pay off our debts during the life of the majority, during our lifetimes.

Rather than hearing from a President who doubled down on a very progressive agenda and who suggested with the rare audacity, as he did, that our Nation is fine in that conflicts and wars are over, in that our economy has returned, in that we have faster job growth than European nations--and yet the President suggested last night that he wants to grow our government in the very same manner that these European nations have today--and rather than tell us how to grow a government we already can't afford, I would ask the President to present a plan to pay for the government we already have.

The greatest threat to future generations is not climate change. It is our economic security, and it is also our homeland security. Many on this side of the aisle have grave reservations about the President's current plan to combat the war against ISIS, or ISIL--against radical extremists-terrorists who intend to bring harm to the United States. That is a threat. That is a real threat.

The President called for something last night that I strongly agree with. I think this body should have a robust debate about an authorization to use military force. We owe it to the American people, who sent us here, to represent them on this very critical issue

of what is our national policy to protect our homeland, to protect American lives.

In fact, what is the current plan to arm Syrian rebels, and what is the likelihood that that will actually be successful when we have seen a lack of success in areas like Iraq?

Despite the declarations of last night, I would challenge that we are not as safe as, perhaps, the President suggested. From the Middle East, to Africa, to Paris, to Yemen, to our very own border, what is that plan?

House Republicans passed a border security bill that reflected the will of the people last July, yet we heard nothing last night--not a single comment--about how to secure our border. It is a sharp contrast. We heard about negotiating with Iran. We heard about releasing prisoners from GTMO. We heard nothing about securing our borders and securing our homeland, so we have taken this time today to present a constructive contrast between the President's view of government and our view of government and what we believe are the right priorities of our government.

I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues today, and I would yield now to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

With that, I yield to a real leader in this institution, a colleague of ours from the great State of Alabama, Mr. Bradley Byrne.

You bring much education experience as a layperson but also somebody with very specific political convictions. The President talked about free community college. And as an example, he used two local areas that now provide it. Well, I think that is the point of departure for our view of government.

If a local community decides that they want to provide education through whatever tax levy that the residents there might support, that is a great opportunity. But to suggest that somehow Washington, which so often fails in orchestrating through the heavy hand of government a new type of education economics, is going to work better than those two communities that he cited last night is exactly where the view of government between our side of the aisle and his begins to depart.

I yield to the gentleman.

In our remaining time, I would like to revisit another topic--it is one on which I think the solutions on our side of the aisle reflect the will of the people that we saw at the ballot box in November--and that is border security.

We need to reclaim this issue, as conservatives. We need to redefine this national conversation. The President likes to continually say that if Congress would just send him a bill, then all would be okay, and it is usually followed by suggesting that if we send a

bill that we pass, he will veto it. What he means is we have to send him his bill.

I just want to point out something because we do have solutions on this side of this aisle, and we have acted responsibly on behalf of that. In July, we passed a border security bill that put facilities closer to the border to keep those who enter illegally closer to the border.

We changed the policy to ``last in, first out,'' so if you get in, you don't get to linger for years before you are returned if you don't have a humanitarian claim that merits staying.

We also increased funding for judges, created tele-courtrooms so that we could more expeditiously process those who come here illegally--and rightfully so--and we should do so very responsibly. We are a loving nation made better for immigration, but we should show everybody the rule of law and how you responsibly immigrate here.

Mind you, we also passed a bill that provided for the health care of those who come here and while they are detained here, but I want to point out something very specific. In the coming weeks, this Congress is going to offer another bill--because that one was never accepted by the Senate or went to the President--to require operational control of our border.

That is a great urgency, to have operational control of our border, not to just address the traditional border security issue, but to address what we know is a growing concern about our domestic and homeland security.

We have seen the threats around the globe. Most certainly, that has to be an area where we can reach agreement with the White House, and I hope we can take up the President on his offer to put a bill on his desk and ask him to sign it, just as he has pledged to do so.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Davis, any more comments this evening?

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time. I hope what the American people have seen and our colleagues have seen is a Congress with solutions.

We will be passing through this House border security solutions, a homeland security solution. Frankly, addressing the constitutional overreach we saw from the President, we will be passing energy independence solutions, education solutions, tax reform solutions. We are committed to doing that on behalf of the American people.

I look forward to working with our colleagues, and frankly, we remain hopeful that we will have the opportunity to work with the President on this as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time, and I would like to claim this time to spend a few moments on the floor of this House to express the appreciation of myself and my colleagues to those who serve every day in our law enforcement community.

There is no better way to kick off this time than to yield to a colleague of mine from the State of Washington, a former sheriff of 30 years in law enforcement, and a former Sheriff of the Year from King County, my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

I thank my colleague from the State of Washington.

Today, on Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, I would like to yield to a champion supporter of law enforcement, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as well to say thank you to law enforcement officers throughout Pinellas County, Florida, and across the Nation. Thank you for your service and thank you for your sacrifice. And I thank your families.

Each day in Pinellas County, Florida, the community I have the opportunity to represent, as well as across the country, thousands of law enforcement officers serve and protect us, often at great sacrifice to their families and at risk to their very own lives.

This was the case on December 21 when Officer Charles Kondek of the Tarpon Springs Police Department in Pinellas County responded to simple a noise complaint. It would be Officer Kondek's end of watch as he tragically lost his life at the hands of a gunman, a gunman whose actions represent the type of inhumanity that we entrust our law enforcement officers each day to protect us from. Officer Kondek was only 45 years old, and he is survived by, and his memory lives on through, his wife and his six children.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this story repeats itself throughout communities across the country. The Nation witnessed, on December 20, in New York, two law enforcement officers who were assassinated by an individual with one intention: to take the lives specifically of law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of Pinellas County, the brotherhood of law enforcement officers, the sisterhood of law enforcement officers who protect us each day understands, just like law enforcement officers across the country, the very risk to their safety and to their lives and the risk and

the heartbreak of their families and their children, that that risk is very real.

In our county, we have lost a total of 24 officers, including, in recent years, St. Petersburg officers David Crawford, Jeffrey Yaslowitz, and Thomas Baitinger, each representing a precious loss of life while serving and protecting us.

And yet we find ourselves today listening to some, a minority in our society, who wish to give voice to those who undermine the very honor of law enforcement officers, who undermine the very sacrifice of our law enforcement officers, and who undermine the very danger that these law enforcement officers face each day. Instead, we should be rising to say ``thank you'' to the men and women of law enforcement, ``thank you'' to the men and women in our communities who protect and defend us.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to do just that, to say ``thank you.'' Thank you to Officer Kondek of Tarpon Springs for his service, and thank you to his family for sharing him with a community that will forever remember his ultimate sacrifice. Thank you to the families of all fallen law enforcement officers, and thank you to those who continue to serve each day.

I want to thank our local law enforcement leadership in my hometown of Pinellas County: Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, Clearwater Police Chief Dan Slaughter, St. Petersburg Police Chief Anthony Holloway, Chief Terry Hughes of my hometown of Indian Shores, Belleair Police Chief Bill Sohl, Gulfport Police Chief Robert Vincent, Kenneth City Police Chief Kevin Matson, Largo Police Chief Jeffrey Undestad, Pinellas Park Police Chief Dorene Thomas, Pinellas County Schools Police Chief Rick Stelljes, Tarpon Springs Police Chief Robert Kochen, Treasure Island Police Chief Tim Casey, and Chief David Hendry of the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg.

I especially want to thank all members of law enforcement in my hometown and those throughout Pinellas County who get in their cars each day and walk the streets, respond to crime, investigate crimes and respond to disturbances and ultimately protect us. I want to thank those I am privileged, within the law enforcement community, to call friends, officers from the Clearwater police force: my dear friend Detective Jonathan Walser, Detective Michael Stonelake, Detective Christopher Precious, Sergeant John Brown, Officer Bill Renfro, Lieutenant Juan Torres, and Lieutenant Richard Harris. And from the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, my friend, Sergeant Steve Wagner.

Thank you to each of you.

And I want to thank the Capitol Police officers who protect each of us here as Members of Congress and the thousands of Capitol visitors each year that are protected from threats that at times can be tragically real. Thank you to all who serve, from Pinellas County, throughout the State of Florida, communities across the country, and right here in this very Chamber. Thank you for protecting us. Thank you for serving. Thank you to every law enforcement officer for your commitment to duty, your service to your community, and your service to your fellow man.

As my colleague, Bradley Byrne said, blessed are those who would lay down their life for their brethren. That is the oath--to risk their life to protect others--that our law enforcement officers renew each day.

Indeed, may our loving God richly bless each one of you who put on the uniform of law enforcement, and may God richly bless your families. May God's loving hands protect and defend each of you every day of your service, just as you protect and defend each one of us. Please know that this Member of Congress and millions of people across the country, including those in Pinellas County and Florida's 13th District, including communities throughout our Nation, are forever grateful for the service of law enforcement officers, your service to your fellow man. So today, on behalf of millions of Americans, I simply say to each of you serving as law enforcement officers, thank you.

With that, I yield to a new colleague of mine from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers for this time.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 2 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, January 12, 2015, at noon for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important appropriations measure to keep our government funded and open, but I also rise to encourage my colleagues on our side of the aisle and address many of the concerns I have heard.

In July of this year, this House, our side of the aisle, passed a border security bill focused on protecting our borders from illegal entries, building facilities at the border to hold illegal entrants at the point of crossing, increasing the amount of immigration law judges and tele-courtrooms that allow undocumented individuals to be adjudicated close to the border instead of being provided travel to courts around the nation, and authorizing our National Guard to respond to the spike in illegal border crossings.

This House passed that measure. The Senate refused to consider it. The President would not sign it.

Last week, this House, our side of the aisle, passed legislation declaring null and void the President's recent Executive Order granting temporary amnesty to millions who have broken our laws. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation.

This House passed that measure. The Senate refused to consider it. The President would not sign it.

After the President's Executive Order, dozens of us, including myself, sent a letter asking the leadership of the House Appropriations Committee to attach a provision to this bill declaring that none of the funds provided to the Administration may be used to implement the President's amnesty order. But the Senate refuses to consider it. The President will not sign it.

The numbers today are simply not on our side. And our only remaining recourse is to shut down the government--a tactic that I cannot support, that I said I would not support when I was elected, and I intend to keep my word. This is a tactic that I believe is terribly wrong for our country, for our economy and for private sector jobs throughout the country.

And so today we should say to the American people, ``The President, the Senate, they must own their legacy. And this House must own ours.''

So what is our legacy today on this side of this aisle? It is a legacy of fighting for Constitutional principles, adherence to the rule of law and separation of powers ordained by our founders, and it is a legacy that today includes a good appropriations bill that is right for the country, and frankly, right for conservatives.

The bill we pass today:

1. Prohibits any funding for the president's Race to the Top Education program, better known throughout the country as Common Core;

2. Slashes the budget of the Internal Revenue Service and prohibits the agency from targeting non-profit groups based on political or ideological affiliations;

3. Reins in the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to reach further into our local communities with regulations opposed by mayors, homeowners, businesses, and agriculture interests;

4. Maintains critical pro-life protections preventing tax dollars from being used for abortion related services;

5. Cuts Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Board which uses price controls to impact available care to patients;

6. Prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to prisons here in the United States; and,

7. It prohibits Department of Justice programs like Fast & Furious.

And most importantly, this bill represents a continued dramatic rollback of our federal budget. This bill spends approximately $1.1 trillion on federal activities, down from approximately $1.4 trillion just five years ago. This budget is lower than we have seen in years and represents a historic downturn in spending--all at the hands of Republicans in Congress. Recall that the President submitted his budget proposal at the beginning of this year and it was resoundingly rejected by both the House and the Senate, including rejection by many members of his own party. This is our budget now, and it is a budget we should support.

This budget prioritizes the right programs for federal spending. It funds our men and women in uniform with the tools and technology they need to safely combat threats around the globe. It provides increased funding to the Veterans Affairs Administration to decrease wait times for benefit applicants. It wisely invests in targeted medical research to address Alzheimer's, cancer, and pediatric sub-specialties.

Finally, and let's be very clear here, this legislation allows us to combat the President's Executive Order on amnesty from a much stronger position in a matter of weeks.

We don't have the votes today in the Senate to overturn the President's amnesty order. That is the reality. There is no means to get a measure even to the President's desk for him to veto. We simply don't have the votes in the Democrat-controlled chamber on the other side of this Capitol. It would be short-sighted for us to convince ourselves otherwise and proceed listlessly down a path to what would only lead to a government shutdown--a shutdown that would break the faith of the American people who have entrusted us with the responsibility to govern.

But we will, beginning January 6. In mere weeks, we will have a Senate controlled by conservatives who can join with this body, this side of the aisle, and continue our legacy of fighting for Constitutional convictions over Constitutional compromise.

Let us today embrace these critically important incremental conservative successes in this appropriations bill--successes that reflect our view of government--and let us then return to this body in only a few weeks with our new Senate colleagues to continue the fight on behalf of the American people. We can then lay on the President's desk legislation that challenges his Executive Order and asks him to defend what we all believe is an intellectually dishonest interpretation of his authority under Article II of the Constitution.

Colleagues, I urge your support.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5059, legislation to improve mental health and suicide prevention services for our Nation's veterans.

Across the country today, there are families grieving, remembering loved ones who, in a moment of tragedy, took their own lives. These families also have in common another memory--the day their loved ones put on the uniform of the Armed Forces for the first time, who raised their right hands and took an oath to defend the Nation, to defend and protect each of us.

In many ways, we as a nation have failed to defend and protect them. We have failed to ensure sufficient access to mental health care and suicide prevention services.

We have remarkable caregivers and mental health counselors in our VA and DOD health systems who are on the front lines of mental health services every day, who do remarkable work; but, administratively, we must do more. We must empower veterans to seek immediate care for mental health and suicide prevention services. We must incentivize mental health professionals to join the VA workforce and deliver health care to our veterans, and we must improve the coordination between the VA and the DOD to deliver these services. This legislation does exactly that, and it is why it deserves our full support.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of national importance, but it is also a matter of personal conviction for many families, including for a mother in my district who, on Memorial Day of this year, at the C.W. Bill Young VA Medical Center at Bay Pines, approached me to share a story about the loss of her son who took his own life while awaiting enrollment in the VA, while awaiting mental health treatment from the VA. His mental health needs were left untreated, and he took his own life.

There are very few things more important for this body than to give voice to the voiceless. We are doing that today by speaking out about the tragic experiences of those who are no longer with us and by improving a health care system that provides remarkable care every day to our veterans but who need this Congress and this administration to enact much-needed changes. Mr. Speaker, this is critically important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the National Defense Authorization Act, both because we as a Congress and the President have failed to honor our men and women in uniform by properly recognizing and authorizing the current actions against ISIS, and because this legislation wrongly begins to roll back the pay and benefits our service members rightfully deserve.

Its been nearly two months since the President announced his military campaign against ISIS. Our military has flown thousands of sorties and we have thousands of our men and women in uniform with their boots on the ground. The President calls them military advisors but they are Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. We are engaged against an enemy that has taken American lives, and enemy that has said they want to penetrate our homeland, an enemy the President has identified by name and declared that our national strategy is to destroy this enemy.

And yet the President has yet to propose an Authorization to Use Military Force, and this body has yet to bring one up. We each have failed in our Constitutional responsibility to have an honest debate about whether we are a nation indeed at war, and whether we are a nation prepared to accept the human sacrifice that comes from conflict, and very importantly how we as a nation will responsibly pay for this conflict.

Instead, we have considered only the President's proposal to arm moderate Syrians--an elusive strategy that will do little to combat the war on ISIS, only complicates our geo-political strategy as it relates to Syria, Iran, Russia and other hostile nations, and a strategy most likely to fail.

Two months ago we had a debate over approving the Presidents strategy to arm and train Syrian rebels, but not a broad Authorization to Use Military Force as we should have. I voted against the President's plan then, and today I most reluctantly rise to oppose this National Defense Authorization Act because quietly tucked into this legislation is a renewal of this authority for two years. While our men and women in uniform continue to commit their lives to fighting our enemy and protect our homeland, we quietly approved for two years the weakest part of an already questionable military strategy.

To make matters worse, the President and the Senate included in this legislation a cut to the housing allowance for our military, and increase in pharmaceutical co-pays, and a rejection to the pay increased proposed by this House of 1.8%.

This is wrong.

Earlier this summer, this body passed a National Defense Authorization Act that rejected the President's proposals. Our body rejected the President's proposed pay increase of 1% and instead passed a raise of 1.8%. We rejected the President's proposal to require a 5% reduction in personnel housing allowance, we rejected changes to the commissary program that would increase costs on military families, and we rejected new pharmaceutical copays proposed by the President. I was pleased to vote for this measure because it was right for our men and women in uniform, it recognized their sacrifices by rejecting proposals that would have had a significant negative impact on the quality of life of those who serve us every day.

Despite our efforts, the President and the Senate prevailed in implementing these cuts through this legislation--and most insultingly, at a time when we are asking our military to confront ISIS and tenor elements around the globe, and at a time when the Commander in Chief has decided it important to commit military troops to battle the scourge of Ebola.

This President and this Congress can do better. We should vote down this measure, return to negotiations with the President and the Senate, and do what is right for our men and women in uniform and what is required of this Congress Constitutionally--to debate and decide if we are today a nation at war with ISIS and if we are a nation with a clearly defined strategy that will be effective in combatting this growing threat to our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this measure and demand better.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional organization from the Tampa Bay area.

Troop Rewards is a group that helps our veterans heal from the psychological stresses of war and reunites them with their families in a safe and relaxing environment.

In 2009, the founder of Troop Rewards, Tom Burkett, received a phone call from a private first class overseas inquiring about the cost of returning home to Clearwater Beach and having a short rest with his family.

Tom replied, How can you be charged anything when you have spent the last year risking your life for our country?

This donation was the first of many for Mr. Burkett, and it inspired him to start the nonprofit Troop Rewards organization. Since then, Troop Rewards has helped more than 100 military members readjust to life after deployment by reintegrating them with their family in a moment of rest and relaxation through the foundation's recovery vacations. With destinations ranging from Maine to Florida, returning military troops have the opportunity to spend time with their family--a reward they have rightfully earned.

Mr. Speaker, Troop Rewards reflects one of our highest priorities as a nation: to repay a debt owed to those who have sacrificed so much for us.

I rise today to commend Troop Rewards and their many partners in this effort, including the Sandpearl Resort in Clearwater, Florida, and the Clearwater Marine Aquarium.

May God bless these fine organizations, and may God bless our troops.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the President's health care plan, known to the Nation as ObamaCare, is in the news, both because it is open season for individuals to choose their level of health care coverage, but also because of the now-made-public suggestion by a senior architect of ObamaCare that the administration would have to rely on, in his words, the ``stupidity'' of the American people to get the President's plan enacted.

Those are shameful words that disrespect every American and have rightfully been condemned by Members on both sides of the aisle. I think the American people know exactly what is in the bill.

We are reminded of it every day that we now live in a country where our government will fine you--fine you--for not having the health care coverage that it deems adequate. It is called the individual mandate, and it is a classic government-knows-best ruse, but this time with the threat of fines and penalties on individuals who don't comply or, in the interpretation of the Supreme Court, with new taxes just for you.

These fines will steadily increase each year. By 2016, it is estimated that 6 million Americans will be subjected to individual fines from their government.

I take a very different view than many in the current administration. First, I think the American people are smart enough to make health care coverage choices for themselves. Second, I don't believe our government should be mandating on individuals the health care coverage that is right for them and their family, particularly under the threat of penalties and fines and additional taxes.

That is why this week I have introduced legislation to rescind the individual mandate in ObamaCare as though it never happened. Unlike the 906-page bill that was ObamaCare, this bill, the Patient Freedom Act, is merely two pages. Every Member of this body can know what is in this bill before we pass it.

Many of us believe that a full repeal of ObamaCare is appropriate and right for the country, but it is foolish for us to think that the President will sign a repeal of his signature legislative achievement. That is why my bill covers only one provision, the individual mandate.

Let's have a government that, again, trusts the people to make their own discussions, that does not suggest, in the terms of this now-famous adviser to the administration, that the American people are too ``stupid'' to make their own health care coverage choices. Let's empower people with true patient freedom, true health care coverage choice.

This modest compromise is very simple. It says to the American people, ``If you like your ObamaCare, you can keep it, but if you believe that you should have different coverage, you are empowered, you are entrusted, you have complete control over the health care coverage discussions for you and your family.''

We are entering a period in January when compromise will be required for this Congress and this President to work together. This is a simple two-page bill that says the American people are indeed smart enough to make their own health care decisions for themselves.

I urge my colleagues to consider this commonsense bill. Let's put it on the President's desk and ask him to do what is right for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we will be asked as a Congress later today to vote on authorization of the President's request to arm Syrian rebels.

I rise this morning to oppose the President's request, and I do so with a heart of conviction that says we must do more to combat, confront, defeat, and destroy ISIS, but also with the conviction, respectfully, that the President's request is simply wrong.

ISIS constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States. My belief on this is clear. I was one of a little over a dozen Members of Congress to recently introduce legislation authorizing the President to do more.

We must eradicate the ISIS regime that perverts a religion founded on peace and uses it as a platform to engage in crucifixions and beheadings and mass murders.

But I oppose today's request because it fails to seek the full authorization of this body. It fails to seek a clear mandate of the American people and because it asks this body to approve only one small portion of an overall strategy that is continuing to evolve. And that portion is most controversial, most questioned, and most vulnerable to failure.

We should be here today as a Congress debating whether we are a Nation at war, whether ISIS constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States, and if we are at war, we as a Congress should be asking the question: Are we fully engaged as a Nation to defeat ISIS, and are we fully committed to accepting the consequences and the casualties required to do so? But that is not what today's vote is about.

Today's vote is whether we as a Nation put our reliance on Syrian rebels, and that leaves far too many unanswered questions. We tried this in Iraq, to mixed results. We know Syrian rebels--we know this-- some will cooperate with ISIS and, in fact, contribute to the additional killings of Syrian Christians and religious minorities. Are we prepared as a body to accept those collateral casualties of terror?

We know training will take months. What will we be doing tomorrow? We know Russia has declared this will be an act of aggression. What is our Nation's response, and what is this body's response? And how does today's debate contribute to our Article 1, Section 8 authority under the Constitution? Are we quietly allying with the Syrian Government, a regime that 18 months ago we said we wanted to topple, or is this an act of aggression against Syria's sovereignty? And where is this Congress in this debate?

The final question is: Do we seriously think, as the President portends, that this will not require a single pair of boots of our Special Operations community to touch Syrian soil? Do we

truly rely on Syrian rebels to lay the targets for our elite air assets?

There are boots on the ground today. We can call them military advisers, but the fact is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday said, if necessary, he would recommend putting them in a combat role. We are not having that debate here on the floor of the House.

The American people deserve a President and a Congress that are honest about what we face as a Nation militarily. The doubt in this debate in this Congress has been palpable. We question the strategy, we question the trust of Syrian rebels, we question our constitutional responsibility, and yet we are prepared as a body to ignore all doubt, to ignore our uncomfortable conviction of opposition to this request simply out of a desperate hope that somehow this matter might resolve itself without the President and the Congress having a hard conversation, recognizing that we are a war weary and tired Nation faced again with an asymmetric threat from terrorists who have threatened our homeland.

We want to believe the beheadings and the audible threats of terror to our shores is not real, but we know it is. We as a Nation do not have the luxury to choose what threats confront us; we only choose our response.

So my request of my colleagues in this House is that we have a full debate on what we face as a Nation. The President has brought us this very limited request merely out of statutory convenience, not out of constitutional conviction. We should not accept that.

My request of the President is this: very respectfully, do not trample on the constitutional authority of this Congress as you reluctantly march to the drumbeat of war that you are rightfully hesitant to engage in and with an elusive strategy that leaves so many unanswered questions today.

This body should have a full debate. The American people deserve to know that the President has requested full authorization and this Congress has had an opportunity to deliberate on it. I reluctantly oppose the request today, knowing we must do so much more to confront ISIS. I ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and in opposition to the EPA's Waters of the U.S. Act.

I represent Pinellas County, Florida, a district that lies between the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay, surrounded by water and prone to flooding and storm runoff. So, like many coastal communities, this is an important issue to us.

EPA issues can be divisive--we know that--but they need not be. My message today is not one of anger. It is simple common sense. We can do better. The EPA can do better and the Corps can do better.

This is not a debate over clean water. Everybody in this body supports clean water. But this is a debate over the expanded jurisdiction of a Federal Agency and the current overreach of that Agency. In this case, this legislation is opposed by a variety of interests, from agriculture, shopping centers, chambers, homebuilders, manufacturers, transportation interests, but very importantly, by counties and mayors like many in my district who spoke to me in August.

We are called as Members of this body to represent our communities. Let's do that today. Let's represent the interests of our communities. This is not a moment for ``Washington knows best,'' because Washington does not know best in this case.

Mr. Chairman, we can do better. In this case, let's send it back and insist on a better rule.