Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the way that, on a nightly basis, he comes down to the well and helps inform people. Jefferson, in the writings of our Founding Fathers, talked about how important it was to have an informed electorate.

I just really appreciate the way the gentleman gives people clarity and information that they can then digest and make their decisions with. That process of informing is, I think, a vital part of the politic. He does it on the daily basis, and I appreciate it. His doing so matters to me and to the people that I represent.

I appreciate so much the gentleman's yielding because I want to talk just a couple of minutes about a bill that I introduced today entitled the REAL ID Privacy Protection Act.

It is a bipartisan bill. It is supported from the Republican side by people like Mark Meadows. It is supported on the Democratic side by Democrats like Chellie Pingree from Maine. I think they do so because it is a commonsense bill that gets at some of the deficiencies that one can find in REAL ID.

Quite specifically, what it does is eliminate the requirement that your personal documentation and documents be held and archived, in essence,

in warehouses for 10 years. It will not require your stuff to be out in government databases for 10 years. Secondly, it eliminates the requirement that the DMV databases be co-linked. Thirdly, it creates uniformity with regard to the way in which extensions are granted.

So the bottom line is your driver's license could still be used to get you in the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort or it could be used to go into Joint Base Charleston or a whole host of other facilities around this country. More significantly, for the average flying public, you could still use your driver's license next year to be able to get on a plane in the United States of America.

Why is all this important?

It is important because individual privacy matters. It is important because equal treatment under the law matters. It is important because the 10th Amendment really matters. States have a role in which the Founding Fathers intended the Federal Government to fit with the State government, to fit with local government, and to fit with individual prerogative.

Now let's examine each one of those couple of things. One, if you look at South Carolina driver's licenses, just as an example, they are secure. We have holograms. We have barcodes. We have a whole host of different things that create security.

Yet, in the wake of 9/11, what the Federal Government, Homeland Security, and others decided at that time was that, in essence, what they wanted was a de facto national ID card and for the Federal Government to, in essence, federalize what had previously been a State function, with State's issuing driver's licenses.

There is not a Federal driver's license. Texas has driver's licenses, South Carolina has driver's licenses, Florida has driver's licenses. Each State may have a little bit different way of doing so, but it was a state prerogative.

In the wake of that Federal requirement--I was wearing a different hat at the time; I was wearing a Governor's hat--I joined with, for instance, Governor Schweitzer from Montana in saying: Wait, this doesn't make sense. The States still have a vital role here. This role does not need to be federalized. We pushed back and, long story short, we were successful with many others in that effort. Yet, what is happening is many of those deadline requirements are now reemerging and approaching.

The question we have to ask ourselves in Congress is: What are we going to do about it? Are we going to push back again? Or are we going to try and slow this again? Or are we just going to let the Federal Government come in and steamroll what has been a State function?

I think it is important that we act, and that is why we introduced this bill. It, again, gets at three important things. One, privacy matters. Quite simply, if government doesn't need your stuff, they don't get your stuff. I think that is a simple premise. Again, let me say it again. If government really doesn't need your stuff, it shouldn't get your stuff.

What do I mean by that?

What I mean is, if the requirement, as is now the case, is that the Federal Government take your personal information and they archive it for the next 10 years, do you really feel that you are more secure?

I would argue that is not at all the case. I would argue that it is much better to have a system that, when you take your birth certificate, you take your marriage license, you take your divorce papers, you take your citizenship papers, whatever it is that you have, take it all, let folks at the government level decide whether you are who you are or whether you are not who you are, and then give your stuff back to you. They don't need to house it for the next 10 years.

That is all this bill does. If you house it for the next 10 years, in fact, there is a considerable cost. The unfunded mandate to States is $17 billion.

So what we are saying is make the determination. Take, again, all your stuff, look at it, but then give it back, rather than requiring States to archive this stuff for the next 10 years.

It also matters because, again, of individual human privacy. Whether it is a divorce decree, whether it is a marriage license, whether it is citizenship papers, whatever it is, we have been in hearings over the last couple of weeks where it was proven that the Russians were quite involved in hacking of American databases.

Why do we want to open that up to Chinese hackers, Russian hackers, to whoever it is, if it isn't required and necessary from the standpoint of security?

Two, this bill simply gets at the notion that States matter. The 10th Amendment matters. Patton was once attributed with saying that, if you tell a soldier to take a hill, tell them to take the hill. Don't tell them how to attack the hill.

The same is true of the Federal Government as it relates to States. Give us a secured requirement, but then allow Texas to go about their way of taking the hill and South Carolina to come with its way of attacking the hill, as long as we take the hill, which is the necessary security requirement.

I think it is also important from the standpoint of security that one thing we have learned over time is that centralization of data does not make data more secure. We have a host of different breaches that have occurred at the Federal level that prove this point.

I think that one of the things that is interesting about Pearl Harbor is that the boats were in one spot and it was one-stop shopping for the Japanese. So, in fact, what we have seen in terms of military strategy going forward is people spread assets out. They don't want them congregated all in one spot so that an attacker would be able to take down a multitude of different assets with one particular raid. I think the same is true in the information age, as it relates to databases.

Finally, this bill is about equal treatment under the law. I think that what many States--South Carolina would be among them--are concerned about is: Is this too subjective? If you happen to be a blue State versus a red State, does that have some degree of determination in the way in which you get an extension or you don't get an extension?

Eighteen States and territories have been granted extensions. Seven States have been granted very limited extensions. All this bill does is say, Let's make that process transparent so that States can look one to the other and say, How was it that you got an extension but I didn't? I think that that level of uniformity would make sure that nobody suspects this system of being arbitrary or capricious by nature.

That is in simple form what the bill does. Again, it is about your privacy. We have had a long debate over the course of our country on security versus freedom, and what we don't want to do is give up certain, in essence, soul conditions, if you will, for freedom, including this notion of federalism, in our efforts to be secure. It is about recognizing that States are not wards of the Federal government, that a $7 billion unfunded liability really does matter to the taxpayers of different States. Finally, it is about equal treatment under the law.

Again, the bill is called the REAL ID Privacy Protection Act. I would ask Members to join us on that bill. I would ask folks out there listening to talk to their House Member about that bill because I think it is one that makes a whole lot of sense.

I would say, again, how much I appreciate the gentleman from Texas yielding. Most of all, I thank him for the way he comes down to the well on such a regular basis to inform the American public.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rotary Club of Hilton Head Island on its fiftieth anniversary. It is my honor to recognize the club and all of its members on this important milestone, which marks the lasting contributions its members have made, and continue to make, toward the lives of a whole host of people through their work, most of whom they will never personally know. They range from buying the first ambulance for Hilton Head Island, to members providing dental care on trips to Chile and Romania. They have raised money and helped with many other local groups, such as the Deep Well Project, Happy Feet, and Memory Matters, but my point here is this is a group that has consistently done great work for others in our community.

Rotary is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders dedicated to high ethical standards and humanitarian service. Approximately 1.2 million Rotarians belong to more than 31,000 Rotary clubs located in 166 countries. Since receiving its charter on April 13, 1967, the Rotary Club of Hilton Head has embraced the high ideals of Rotary. The members of the club have developed opportunities for service and maintained high ethical standards in business and professional ventures, and done countless things to improve the quality of life on Hilton Head Island and beyond. With that, I would again ask that you please join me in congratulating the Rotary Club of Hilton Head Island on its fiftieth anniversary and in wishing its members the best of luck as they continue their work and service to others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a bill that Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and I have that we will be offering tomorrow. I think it is an important bill from the standpoint of advancing and perpetuating this American notion called freedom. It is a bill that had 130 sponsors in the last Congress. I am joined on the bill by Tom Emmer and Mr. Poe and Mr. Amash as original cosponsors as we drop the bill tomorrow. It is quite simply entitled the Freedom to Travel to Cuba bill. It does what the name suggests, to lift the current restrictions in encumbering Americans' ability to travel to Cuba.

Why is that important?

I think it is important for a number of different reasons, first of which is tied to the basic, fundamental notion of American liberty. American liberty is built of many different things. The Supreme Court has actually determined that as real as what you choose to wear, what you choose to eat, or what you choose to read is this basic, fundamental right to travel.

In the American system, we can travel as we see fit. I can go here, I can go there. I am going to visit my grandmother in Des Moines, my cousin in Chicago. We choose without government control and without government edict where we come and where we go. It is a far cry from what we saw in the former Soviet Union where you had to have your papers to determine where you could travel.

I have a map of the globe here. Did you know that you or I could travel to any country on this globe except one? You or I could travel to North Korea. You or I could travel to Syria. You or I could travel to Iran. You or I could travel to Iraq. It may not work out well for you, it may not be the best of trips, but you or I could travel without government prohibition to any spot on this globe except one, and that one is Cuba.

That may have made sense in 1960. For security reasons in the time of the cold war, it may have made sense to have that prohibition in place. But the question is: Does it make sense today? I don't think it does for a whole variety of reasons.

One, this is about the basic, fundamental American right of travel as we see fit, not as government sees fit.

Two, this is about the American liberty and this fragile notion of, if we don't protect it, government tends to grow. Jefferson talked about this theme a long time ago. He talked about the normal course of things for government to gain ground and for government to yield. So if we don't push back--and this is what the REINS Act was all about--if we don't push back about the government edict or laws that have outgrown their usefulness, what we are doing is we are allowing government to encroach on this fragile notion of liberty.

Fundamental to the notion of common sense is, if you tried something for 50 years and it has not worked, may we not try something different? I was here in the 1990s. I signed onto Helms-Burton. But it didn't work, and so we asked: Why not try something different?

What Ronald Reagan proposed at the time of the Iron Curtain was for Americans, kids with backpacks, to travel on the other side of that curtain. That personal diplomacy, that one-on-one diplomacy, would be key in bringing down that wall. That was the notion of engagement.

So I think this is about saying American policy has been the excuse that the Castros have used for 50 years. We have almost the longest- serving dictatorship in the history of globe there with the Castro brothers. What was oftentimes the case is they would blame the blockade, the embargo, Americans' inability to travel, whatever was going wrong with the country rather than simply addressing the real issue. The problem was communism and the way that it encumbers people and their hopes and their dreams. We gave them an excuse. So this is about pulling back the excuse and trying something different. It is about pushing back on a regulation that has not served its purpose.

Three, this is about engaging because that is part and parcel to American liberty. You know, I don't like some of the things that are going on in Russia. I don't like some of the things that are going on in China. I don't like some of the things that are going on in Vietnam. You can pick your country. But what we have chosen, as an American policy, is this notion of engagement, that we ultimately are going to be able to solve more by engaging with other countries. Again, that is why Ronald Reagan embraced it with countries of the former Soviet Union in helping to bring down that wall. So this is about

perpetuating the notion of engagement and government regulation.

We have just passed the REINS Act, which is all about saying if something isn't making sense, let's peel it back. Let's not have the fourth branch of government going out and perpetuating all kinds of regulations without them going through Congress. Yet, with regard to travel to Cuba, you have to sign an affidavit as to why you are going there. You have to keep receipts for up to 5 years proving where you did or didn't spend money. If you fill out a form wrong, you can be subject to a $250,000 fine. Is that kind of regulation consistent with free travel that we all should enjoy as Americans?

Finally, I think that this bill is about bringing about change to Cuba. My interest is not primarily about Cuba. My interest is about American liberty and the need to perpetuate American liberty.

But one of the offshoots, one of the benefits is about bringing change to Cuba. Even the worst detractor of the bill, we are all about the same thing, which is bringing more freedom to that country and the 11 million people that make up that country.

I think that allowing Americans to go there and to tell folks about what you are hearing from your state-run radio station or television station is not the truth, here is what is really going on. It is part and parcel to bringing about a change in Cuba. It is part and parcel to eliminating the excuses that have been used by the communist regime there. It is continuing the theme of engagement that we have employed for more than 100 years. And most all, it is part and parcel to maintain this fragile notion of American liberty which always needs to be protected.

If something has encroached upon American liberty, it is not about a tangible result in the here and the now. It needs to be pushed back. So, fundamentally, this bill is about those five different things. It is for that reason I would ask that viewers talk to their House or Senate Member and ask them to sign on to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was delayed for votes on Tuesday, February 10, 2015, as the train I was on ended up being delayed by two and a half hours, and as a consequence, I arrived half an hour late and missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 719--TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act--vote: ``yes,'' H.R. 720--Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act--vote: ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this bill based on my admiration for you as a chair and for your work--the committee's work, frankly--in, I think, instituting a great bill that has important forms in projecting force around the world, in sustaining troop levels, and in ultimately defending our country.

But I do believe, as was just mentioned by the last speaker, that there is still a glaring problem in that it continues this process of ceding power and

authority from the legislative branch over the executive branch, which means, for me, as good as this bill is--and I think it is a great bill--there is still this larger constitutional question about the balance of power in our system of government at the Federal level.

For me, what I would say is, I don't know how we condemn the President for taking unilateral action with regard to immigration and yet endorse a bill that authorizes and offers funds for his ability to take unilateral actions with regard to war in the Middle East. As has already been noted, he has burned through his 60 days in the War Powers Act. There is no declaration of war, and, in this case, there is no current authorization for these two wars.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I thank not only the chairman but I thank the gentleman from Florida for his hard work on this important measure because my dad used to say that at times in life it is important to call an ace an ace. And I think fundamentally what this bill does is call an ace an ace with regard to cutting off and ending unilateral actions by Presidents, whether they are Republicans or Democrats.

This is fundamentally about the balance of power in our Federal system. It is also important because it fits with what I am hearing from a lot of folks back home when they say, well, this issue of immigration reform has less to do with immigration than it has to do with the rule of law in this country and the way in which it should be applied to all folks equally. They say that it is fundamentally unfair for States to be burdened with new costs based on the unilateral action by a President. They say it is fundamentally unfair for our Federal entitlement system to be that much more wobbly based on a unilateral action by a President. And they say it is fundamentally unconstitutional for the President to take action in the pattern that he has, whether it is with the Affordable Care Act, whether it is with the Federal contracts, whether it is with war in the Middle East, or now immigration.

So is this enough ultimately? No. I think we ultimately need to defund the President's ability to move forward. But it is an important first step in that basic notion that my dad prescribed of calling an ace an ace.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this bill. I believe in energy independence, as do the people I represent at home, and accordingly am supportive of opening up these offshore areas--but I do not think this should occur without the concurrence and input of coastal states that might be affected were something to go wrong. This fits with what I have consistently heard from people up and down the coast.

Not all decisions must be made in Washington, and the idea of a drilling rig going up just a few miles from our coast without having to acknowledge any degree of state input to me is the codification of Washington control. Some may be for a drilling rig these few thousands of feet from their local beach, others may be against it . . . but in keeping with the principal of federalism, that decision needs to be made by those affected--not an unelected government worker in DC.

Toward that end, I introduced a bill, H.R. 3051, the Coastal States Extension Act of 2013, which would give states the final say on oil and natural gas leases out to twelve nautical miles from the current three nautical mile limit. States no longer have a direct economic tie as you move beyond the line of sight and in this regard, I thought my bill a reasonable compromise between drill and no drill interests. This would give states the flexibility to consider what is best for their economies in terms of the balance between tourism, drilling, fisheries and other considerations. Texas, for instance, already has control of oil and natural gas leases out to nine nautical miles and the model there has worked well. It has not hampered drilling. I testified before the Rules committee the last time this bill came up, but unfortunately, this idea was not attached as an amendment to the bill we had before us and the current bill before us tonight is unamendable. I would have supported the bill if my proposal had been included and I hope we can include it in the future.

Toward that end, I look forward to working with the Committee on Natural Resources to find a way forward on striking a more favorable balance between states' rights and energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the plan that has been put forward by the President. As you, Mr. Speaker, just noted a few moments ago, it is a small portion of a larger and, what I believe to be, fundamentally flawed plan.

I say that for many different reasons, one of which is the simple reality that body bags from a far off battle or from a far off war don't return to Washington, D.C. They return to congressional districts and States across this country. It is for that very reason that the Founding Fathers believed so strongly in Congress having the authority, and the sole authority, for the declaration of war.

I mean, I think it is important to look to what James Wilson, who happened to be one of the biggest advocates for a strong Presidency, said to his own State delegation back in 1787. He said on the importance of congressional authority with regard to war:

This system will not hurry us into war. It is calculated to

guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man

or a single body of men to involve us in such distress, for

the important power of declaring war is vested at the

legislative level at large.

George Washington said this:

The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in

Congress. Therefore, no offensive expedition of importance

can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated

upon the subject and authorized such a measure.

James Madison said this:

The power to declare war, including the power of judging

the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the

legislature. The Executive has no right in any case to decide

the question whether there is or is not cause for declaring

war.

I think our Founding Fathers had it right, and if we move forward today without stopping and waiting and insisting upon the President's constitutional duty to come before this body and ask for a declaration of war, I think we are making a mistake.

I would say, secondly, that I think we are making a mistake because the news of today is that General Dempsey now says if the plan doesn't work out, he would in fact recommend American ground troops there in this crisis in the Middle East. I think that that is telling. Because if you stop and think about it, is America the only group that is expected to suffer through the ravages of war with regard to boots on the ground in this instant if General Dempsey's call is right?

Think about this. There have been 6,600 American deaths there in that part of the world in recent history. There have been more than 50,000 soldiers that have returned with life-altering wounds. I mean, their lives are changed forever, and yet we can't get a real firm commitment out of allies there in the Middle East as to what they will or won't do with regard to ground troops.

So if it is that big a threat, why is it that allies in that part of the world are not making real and substantial commitments with regard to what they will or won't do with regard to ground troops?

Thirdly, I would say what we are doing is we are signing up for an open-ended commitment, maybe a 5- or a 10- or a 15- or a 20-year commitment, without legal authority to do so. The administration is resting solely on the 2001 authorizing language, which was to President Bush, in the wake of 9/11, for pursuing perpetrators of 9/11.

And yet in this instance what they are saying is, well, no, no, that gives us authority for the next 10, 15, 20 years. That is not the case. Congress authorized for that action. I think it is a misreading of the law to move forward as they have.

Finally, I would make this point. The Bible says, ``Be hot, be cold, but don't be lukewarm.'' And I think this plan is predicated on lukewarm. I have some colleagues who say we need to commit ground troops; we need firmer involvement. I have others who say we don't need to do anything at all. And we are splitting it right down the middle. Let's bomb a bit and let's arm ``moderate rebels'' and we see how that works.

We have a snapshot of how that works because just this spring 1,000 ISIS soldiers routed two divisions of Iraqis, about 30,000 folks, in no time. Mind you, these are the same folks that American taxpayers spent $25 billion training and equipping. We equipped about 200,000 of them. It has not worked well.

I think we need to pause, first, for constitutional reasons; second, for legal authority reasons; and third, for a flawed strategy that is based on lukewarm. We have that chance today, and I would beg of my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would just say thank you to Chairman McKeon for his work and for the leadership's work and, indeed, for providing this time for debate.

As was just stated by my colleague from Texas, I don't think that there is a more sacred vote out there for Members of Congress than on issues of war.

I mean, in its balance hangs life and death. In its balance hangs all kinds of financial and life considerations. In its balance hangs how allies are going to view our actions going forward. This is an incredibly important subject, and, indeed, I thank Chairman McKeon for his work and the committee's work on this matter.

That having been said, I rise, though, in respectful opposition not to the committee's work but to the actions of the President because I think his approach has been fundamentally flawed. I say that, first off, because I think that step one of an issue of war has to be congressional approval, and I think it is so important based on what the Constitution said for the President, indeed, to come to the Congress to ask for a declaration of war, and he has, quite simply, not done so.

I would then say, ``Okay. On what basis does he move forward?'' If you look at what he and others have said, they hang a large part of their hat on the authorization of 2001, and I think what is interesting here is what the President, himself, said just 2 years ago.

He said, ``The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflict between nation states.''

I think that the President was right. I agree with the President; yet members of the administration have been coming to Capitol Hill.

They have been, basically, making the case that with that AUMF they have the authorization to go, in essence, another 25 years. I think that that, again, is mistaken. These are not blank checks. Each war and each war effort needs to be debated in isolated form based on that effort.

I would thirdly say that I think that this effort is fundamentally flawed because what von Clausewitz talked about with regard to war. I don't think, at the end of the day, we are going to affect the military center of gravity of our opponent because, if you look at the center of gravity, I would argue it is their faith, it is their willpower, and it is their motivation.

As we saw with the Nazis and the bombings on London, bombing alone will not change will, and, in some cases, it strengthens resolve. What you are left with is, in the void that is created with bombings, boots on the ground, but, in this case, we are leaving that precious job of boots on the ground to what are described as ``moderate rebels,'' whatever that is, and an example, that we have to look back in what just happened.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the activities of this spring, 1,000 ISIS soldiers routed 30,000 trained soldiers after we spent $25 billion in that process. I think there are a whole host of mistakes and errors in this plan and would respectfully rise in opposition to it.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4803) to require the Transportation Security Administration to conform to existing Federal law and regulations regarding criminal investigator positions, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

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

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on the subcommittee. I would say the same to my colleague from Louisiana, for their respective pieces of work on this important bill.

As has already been noted by both of my colleagues, H.R. 4803 calls for, I guess, the institution of a fairly simple premise, and that is, we pay for what we get in government.

That is what they do in the private sector. That is what individuals do in the household. And if you stop and think about it, you wouldn't pay somebody who could run a backhoe or a bulldozer--heavy equipment, if you will--if all you needed was somebody who could run a shovel. You wouldn't pay a chemical engineer to come and clean your pool or mix the chemicals in the pool. You wouldn't hire Wolfgang Puck to come over and fix you a piece of grilled cheese. It may be the greatest piece of grilled cheese you could find, but it isn't what you would be paying for.

So this bill incorporates that commonsense notion of, in government, we ought to get what we pay for. And as has already been noted, criminal investigators in this case do not meet Federal standards with regard to the 50 percent threshold.

This bill does a couple of very, very simple things. It sets in place a standard by which to track whether or not they are doing so. And for the work that isn't to that standard, it eliminates this additional pay, the so-called LEAP pay. LEAP pay is law enforcement availability pay. As has already been noted, again, there is a 25 percent premium, but in many cases, this is the tip of the iceberg, because if you look at additional benefits in terms of early retirement or enhanced training, there is a real cost to the taxpayer that goes with continuing the road that we have been on.

This bill attempts to change that. It has teeth, and it freezes any hiring in the Office of Inspection going forward if these changes aren't made. As my colleague from North Carolina just noted, there are real savings: $17 million. It is small by Federal standards, but think about how many neighborhoods it takes to accumulate $17 million in taxes. It is a step in the right direction in saving taxpayer money.

Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, I urge additional support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my chairman.

All that could be said has been said, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Monday, July 14, 2014, due to Flight No. 844 being diverted to Richmond International Airport before landing into Reagan National Airport due to inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

H.R. 4195--The Federal Register Modernization Act--Vote: ``yes.''

H.R. 5029--The International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2014--Vote: ``yes.''

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.

I would just like to thank, indeed, the chairman and the members of the committee for their great work on it. At the end of the day, it represents expanded choice in education, and that whole notion of increasing and expanding the marketplace in education, I think, is vital for a couple of different reasons.

I think it is vital, one, because it is better for students. I think it is vital because the local control of education matters. Ultimately, I think it is vital from the standpoint of improving and increasing the level of innovation that we see in the educational marketplace. Let me expand on those thoughts just over a couple of minutes.

One is that it is vital for students because God makes every child different. When I was working in politics in South Carolina, we passed a rather major charter school bill.

We now have over 60 charter schools in South Carolina--right at 60 charter schools in South Carolina. What it did was it tailor-made for students applications that fit who they were.

So, in some cases, if they wanted to work on leadership, they could do so. In some cases, if they wanted to work on mathematics or English or technology or the arts, they had venues by which to specialize in that which God wired them to do.

So, one, this idea of increased choices for the students that are out there, I think it is vital.

Two, I think it is absolutely vital to the larger notion of local control.

People invest in things that they have a say in, that they have a voice in. What we saw in choice in South Carolina and expanded choices on the charter school front was that parents indeed got more deeply involved.

I have not just seen that in South Carolina. I have seen it in different spots across the country, whether that is KIPP Academy or whether that is the old Marva Collins School up toward Milwaukee. It is interesting to see the way in which parents would invest in their child's education when they had a little bit more control and a little bit more voice. That is true, again, at Bridges Academy in Beaufort, South Carolina, or KIPP Academy out toward Houston.

Finally, I would make this point. It is absolutely vital to innovation in education, because the old saying is, the definition of insanity is keep on doing the same thing and expect a different result.

This idea of changing the educational paradigm so that there are more choices for kids and parents out there is absolutely critical to competitiveness in this country.

Look at the numbers. I pulled some of them. We are behind Liechtenstein, Vietnam, and Iceland with regard to mathematics in global scores. We are behind Poland, Luxembourg, and Estonia with regard to reading scores in global scores.

We are behind Canada, we are behind the United Kingdom, we are behind Slovenia, we are behind France. We are behind a whole host of different places in scores on the science front.

And so if we are going to change that, if we are going to be competitive in this global competition for jobs, capital, and the way of life, it is vital that we have bills like this.

For that reason, I applaud the work of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the outstanding career and accomplishments of Coach Ed Steers. At the conclusion of this school year, Coach Steers will be retiring as Athletics Director of Porter-Gaud School after nine great years. Under his leadership, Porter-Gaud has consistently had one of the most successful and well- rounded athletics programs in the South Carolina Independent School Association (SCISA), winning twenty-six state titles, as well as the SCISA President's Cup for three of the past four years.

As much as Coach Steers has done for the Cyclones, many do not know the details about Ed's career prior to his arrival at Porter-Gaud. As a student-athlete at the Citadel (Class of 1968), Coach Steers was a three-time Southern Conference champion in wrestling, never losing in a dual meet. He entered the coaching profession following a brief stint as a tank officer in the Vietnam era, coaching for the Army, then as head coach at William and Mary and later at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is still the winningest wrestling coach in the history of both programs, and has been named to the Citadel's Athletics Hall of Fame, the National Wrestling Hall of Fame, and the New York Collegiate Wrestling Hall of Fame. He also was named the Citadel's Alumnus of the Year in 2002.

More important than all of these accolades has been Coach Steers' influence on the coaches, athletes, and the entire Porter-Gaud community. Ed models a lifestyle of personal fitness and discipline by squeezing in a run every day. He knows the name and the story of every single athlete and coach--and chokes up in telling the best ones every season at the athletics assemblies. He is present when buses pull out at 5:00 a.m., and he is present on the sidelines of almost every athletics event, whether bantam, junior varsity, or varsity. My boys Marshall, Landon, Bolton, and Blake join me, the Porter-Gaud Athletics Department, and the entire school in thanking Ed for his service and wishing him all the best in his well-deserved retirement. While his leadership and guidance will be sorely missed at Porter-Gaud, his legacy at the school will remain long after he departs and we wish him and his wife Sally all the best as their next journey begins.

I thank my colleague.

I rise in respectful opposition to the CBC budget for the reasons that my colleague from California just enumerated.

I have listened to this debate over the last few minutes, and the Ryan budget has been called a draconian budget, a phony budget, an extreme budget, a reckless budget, a heat-seeking missile aimed at the American public budget, but what it has not been recognized as is a brave budget. And I say that because it gets at what no other budget in this process gets at, which is entitlement spending. The President's budget doesn't. The CBC budget doesn't. The Democratic alternative doesn't. The Progressive budget doesn't. It's only this budget that really begins to address the elephant in the room.

Is it perfect? No.

Will I vote against some of the appropriations bills that come along in its wake? I suspect, yes.

But it has been said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with that first step. And to the credit of the Ryan--the Republican budget, it begins that first step at addressing entitlement reform in a way that has not been the case because, to do nothing would, indeed, be to launch a heat-seeking missile into the pocketbook, the wallet, the purse of every American as we wait for the day of reckoning to occur, which is 2025.

In 2025, there will only be enough money for interest and entitlements and nothing else. So we can talk about all these other worthy programs, but without addressing that terminal date of 2025, we are in real trouble.

I think that there are particular problems with this amendment. As you look at taxes going up by $2.3 trillion, you look at spending going up by $6.7 trillion, and you look at an additional $4.3 trillion of debt, it says we have real problems.

But, again, the operative number is what happens to the value of our currency, to future inflation, and to the value of our savings if we do nothing, which is, again, addressed in this Ryan budget with its address of entitlement spending. To do nothing is indeed extreme, and it is reckless.

Mr. Chairman, I join in support of this bill not just because it is about amendments and the importance of public input, but ultimately because it is about two central tenets that the Founding Fathers laid out that I think are important to both Republicans and Democrats alike.

Quite simply, their belief was that three, four, or five perspectives were always better than one. They didn't want to see unilateral action, they didn't want to see a king, and the idea of overstepping on that front was contrary to what they set up; and secondly, that the individual was to be the sole repository of power in our political system and that any government had legitimacy only inasmuch as there was consent by the governed. And what you see with many of these monument-type activities is no consent by the locally governed.

So I very much believe in land conservation and have been an advocate for a long time, but I believe in a process that prescribes to that which the Constitution laid out necessary in that process.