Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it's with great emotion that I rise today.

First of all, we're right in the midst of a government shutdown, and this is a terrible time. Second of all, this is my greatest hero's birthday; it was my father's birthday, October 1.

My dad passed away about 5 years ago. He was part of the Greatest Generation, as denoted by Tom Brokaw. He fought bravely in New Guinea during World War II, and he represented his country proudly.

My son-in-law is a captain in the Army. He's the father of my four grandchildren in Stuttgart, Germany. My nephew is an Army Ranger who has fought proudly in Afghanistan. It is for them that I rise today.

Make no mistake, the other side today says that they want to support these things, but they don't. Why? Because it's political posturing. They don't want to mitigate the pain because that might somehow hurt their ability to try to extract whatever they can politically.

Our constituents don't live in political rhetoric land. They live in the land where the rubber meets the road.

Let's be really clear: You have an opportunity on the other side of the aisle to fund the veteran programs, and you're going to be held accountable for that. If you vote ``no,'' that's where the rubber meets the road. You'll be responsible for denying them these benefits.

Mr. Chairman, you've already heard that this is a very bipartisan measure that is supported by people on both sides of the aisle.

In fact, I would like to point out a little story that I think is kind of interesting. I think Mr. Gosar might be a little embarrassed, and his partner on the other side of the aisle in getting this through, Ann Kirkpatrick. But I think it's really interesting to note that Mr. Gosar beat Mrs. Kirkpatrick in a campaign a few years ago, yet they were able to put all differences aside to come together for what's best for the State and what's best ultimately for the Nation.

We are talking about 3,700 jobs. Every town hall meeting that I've held

this year--and I think the same thing could be said for most folks in this body on both sides of the aisle--the number one issue that keeps coming up is jobs, jobs, jobs. People want to get back to work again. Arizona was hit really hard by this Great Recession, and the prospect of getting 3,700 jobs in our State for this great project that's going to provide 25 percent of the copper for this country is phenomenal. That's why The Arizona Republic, our State's largest newspaper, came out and editorialized for it. That's why you see all these different entities that really are on both sides of the aisle coming out in support of this idea.

I really find it incredible that as we try to balance the budget, we try to start whittling down the deficit, stop having to pay a third of our debt to China, that we have folks on the other side of the aisle that are not willing to either cut spending or create jobs. I find that incredible.

This is a phenomenal opportunity. It's a win-win all the way across the board and what I think a lot of our young people would call a ``no- brainer.''

I would like to really commend the other gentleman from Arizona, Representative Paul Gosar, for his undying support and his incredible hard work to get this done, and I commend his colleague on the other side of the aisle, Ann Kirkpatrick, for her great work on this.

I also want to just say in closing that this is extremely important to the folks in Arizona. It's been going on since I left Congress the first time, and that was 12 years ago. It's time to put this to bed.

It has passed the House on several occasions and it gets all caught up in the Senate. I think we have the opportunity to get it done this year, I think common sense will prevail, and I would like to again compliment the gentleman from Arizona for his great work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi: When you and the

President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act

(ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have

now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat.

Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an

equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned

health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour

work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-

line workers in the American economy. We have been strong

supporters of the notion that all Americans should have

access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been

strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have

put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the

vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep

concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory

interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the

destruction of nonprofit health plans. As you both know

first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded

and met with a stone wall by the White House and the

pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other

stakeholders have repeatedly received successful

interpretations for their respective grievances. Most

disconcerting of course is last week's huge accommodation for

the employer community--extending the statutorily mandated

``December 31, 2013'' deadline for the employer mandate and

penalties.

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for

you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended

consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are

already creating nightmare scenarios:

First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep

employees' work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous

employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this

obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact

is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our

current health benefits.

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit

health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our

members participate. These non-profit plans are governed

jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act.

Our health plans have been built over decades by working men

and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the

Administration, our employees will treated differently and

not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As

such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status

and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit

insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won't

receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they'll be

taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these

restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours

unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of

viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we

represent and the families they support, we can no longer

stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care

Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our

members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can

be made within the existing statute that will allow our

members to continue to keep their current health plans and

benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless

changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but

the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans

including the members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

James P. Hoffa,

General President,

International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Joseph Hansen,

International President, UFCW.

D. Taylor,

President, UNITE-HERE.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my continued concerns with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It seems that every day we learn a new way this law is negatively impacting the American middle class.

Last week, three prominent unions sent a letter to the Senate majority leader and the House minority leader. In the letter, union leaders highlighted how ObamaCare is driving up the cost of small group insurance plans, causing employers to drop employees from their coverage or convert the employees to part-time status.

In fact, that's exactly what happened in my district in Mesa, Arizona. The Maricopa Community College District

announced that it will be cutting hours for adjunct faculty and student-service workers in order to convert them to part-time status and avoid onerous ObamaCare requirements and mandates. This is not only a financial hardship for these professors and their families, but the students suffer as well.

Higher costs under ObamaCare are forcing employers to choose between keeping their doors open or cutting hours and staffing levels. These are the unintended consequences of a very, very bad law.

It's time to repeal this law before it inflicts more harm on middle class America. We must take all necessary steps to repeal and replace this tragic legislation with true health care reform that relies on commonsense free-market policies and returns the power to patients and their doctors, not Washington bureaucrats.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. This is the first real glimmer of sanity and common sense on Federal education policy probably in the last 20 or 30 years. I congratulate the chairman.

As one of the speakers said before me, in the last 30 years, our international standing on STEM classes and math and science has gone from first place--I believe we're somewhere between 10th and 15th place on the international test scores.

I used to listen to an adage from my father where he said if you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting. We've had this encroachment of Federal Government time and time again in education policy. It doesn't work. This gives the flexibility to put the decisions back into the local governments-- teachers, parents, classrooms, and school boards--and that's where it needs to be. One size does not fit all and Washington is not the font of all knowledge. We can do better and we will do better, and this will do much better

I have two letters from people in my local community, education leaders that have come out in strong support of this bill, and they're hard to please. So I will enter them in the Record.

July 17, 2013.

Hon. Matt Salmon,

Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

Representative Salmon: Reading a bill with ``common'' sense

reform (no pun intended) for a broken education system is

finally giving a voice to the frustration of millions of

Americans witnessing the results of an over-regulated,

burdensome, inflexible, one size fits all government

intrusion into the education of our most precious resource--

our children. Although this bill may not address all concerns

for all citizens, HR5 is a breath of fresh air and a good

start in the right direction.

The long overdue ESEA Reauthorization asserts our 10th

Amendment right by reducing the federal role in education and

properly restoring that authority to the states and local

communities. This bill limits the authority of DOE,

eliminates overlapping programs, requires more transparency,

and removes the ability of the secretary of education to

coerce states to adopt National Common Core Standards and

Assessments--standards that only Washington D.C. based trade

associations (not parents, teachers, schools, or states) have

the authority to change. The DOE states they do not control

curriculum but with the assessments aligning to the

standards, of course the curriculum will also need to align

to the same standards.

HR5 provides more school choice for parents. It strengthens

schools and student's needs in targeted populations by giving

more flexibility with streamlined funding. Teachers will be

evaluated by a state run system based on their actual ability

to teach rather than by their credentials. Valuable classroom

time can be spent on the needs of individual students instead

of worrying how test scores will affect teacher evaluations.

Haven't we already played that song with the AIMS test? We

should nurture and develop, rather than stifle our educators

love and spirit of teaching our youth. HB5 will provide the

mechanism to accomplish this.

This bill gives states the opportunity to regain autonomy,

not only in the classroom, but internationally. Prior to the

creation of the DOE, we had an envious ranking when

benchmarked with other countries. Contrary to DOE claims,

there is no proof Common Core is ``internationally''

benchmarked. How can it be--it is a pilot program with our

children being used as the guinea pigs.

Our education system works best when government limits its

role to aiding and supporting the states--not controlling

them. HR5 doesn't cure all issues, but it takes a giant step

forward. I urge the members of the House of Representatives

to look into the eyes and minds of our children when debating

this bill. Their education will play a vital role in their

future and the future of this country. Please vote yes for

them, and for us.

Sincerely,

Carol Clesceri,

Local Education Advocate, Prominent

Member, Education Advisory Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico and specifically one of their renowned scientists, Lee An Rodriguez. Since it was established in 1971 with a Memorandum of Understanding between the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Puerto Rico, the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico has been dedicated to conservation efforts throughout the island. The Secretary and the Governor jointly appoint the trustees. Since that time they have become one of the preeminent conservation groups the Western Hemisphere and the leader in the Caribbean.

Under the leadership of Fernanado Lloveras, the Trust Fund has continued the legacy started by the original Executive Director, Francisco Javier Blanco. On an island that is only 35 miles wide and 100 miles long and is home to over four million people they have been able to carve out some magnificent examples of both historical and ecological conservation. The Trust currently has over 18,000

acres under protection and collaborates on a number of projects with government agencies.

The Las Cabezos de San Juan Nature Preserve near Fajardo is a wonderful example of both nature and historical preservation. The site has a bioluminescent lagoon as well as a mangrove forest that allows for visitors to walk through it on a series of boardwalks without disturbing the natural habitat. It also has one of the original Spanish lighthouses, which has been restored and serves as a museum and dormitory for visiting research students.

The Hacienda Buena Vista outside of Ponce is a testament to man's imagination. Built in the 1850's as a coffee plantation it is run on hydropower where the water is drawn from the mountain stream, used to power the plantation, and returned to the stream. It contains a wonderful water turbine engine that was manufactured in West Point, NY and shipped to Puerto Rico.

The Trust is currently restoring a sugar plantation near Manati. It totals 2300 acres and gives a glimpse into the past of Puerto Rico when the sugar industry was a vibrant part of the economy.

Ms. Lee An Rodriguez has been a leader at the Trust in educating others on the importance of land preservation and particularly the importance of having clean water. She is being honored, along with three other scientists, for her leadership in developing citizen science groups under a program funded by the National Science Foundation.

Both Ms. Rodriguez and the Conservation Trust Fund of Puerto Rico are to be commended for their exemplary work in the field of conservation.

Mr. Speaker, I submit an article from the Caribbean Business noting this honor for Ms. Rodriguez.

PR Scientist Honored at White House

Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico development manager Lee

Ann Rodriguez is among four scientists who lead citizen

science groups funded by the National Science Foundation

(NSF) being honored in a White House ceremony on Tuesday.

Rodriguez is currently training hundreds of residents of

Puerto Rico to lead citizen groups that will study the

impacts of urbanization on the biodiversity and cultural

resources of the Manati River watershed.

Ultimately, Rodriguez's trainees, who range in age from

teenagers to retirees, will cumulatively lead thousands of

other citizen scientists, many of whom would otherwise have

minimal exposure to science. The data they produce will

support long-term watershed monitoring and inform land use

decision-making in Puerto Rico.

Rodriguez, the other three NSF-funded Champions of Change,

along with eight other Citizen Scientist Champions of Change

will be recognized for their exemplary leadership in

involving the broader, non-expert community in research on

science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM).

The Citizen Science Champions of Change are leaders in a

field that is currently exploding in popularity--partly

because the Internet and new applications afford quick and

effective communication between citizen scientists and

scientists. More than 600 citizen science groups are

currently engaging more than 100,000 worldwide volunteers.

In addition, data from citizen scientists has been

incorporated into more than 1,000 scientific papers in peer

reviewed journals. In fact, much of our current understanding

about the distribution of plants and animals, the quality of

water in streams and rivers, observed astronomy and the

evidence of global climate changes was derived from data

produced by citizen science projects.

Operating as a private, nonprofit organization, the

Conservation Trust manages a number of the island's

environmentally sensitive areas, while promoting the concepts

of conservation to schools and the general public through

volunteer programs, reforestation projects and various

community workshops and events. In this way, the Conservation

Trust, founded more than 40 years ago, works toward its goal

of protecting and enhancing the precious natural resources of

Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to address Congress today.

I'm very pleased, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere for the Foreign Affairs Committee, that we held a hearing on this issue. Afterwards, we decided--after some extensive consultation with folks from the Obama State Department, we worked with the chairman of the Resources Committee and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) to develop this language.

There is an old axiom that says ``let no good deed go unpunished.'' Nowhere in America could that be more true. Actually, nowhere on Earth could that be more true than here in Washington, D.C.

The fact is that this language reflects the agreement that the Obama administration signed almost a couple of years ago. Maybe there's some buyer's remorse and maybe there's an idea now that we don't like the fact that we agreed to this language a couple of years ago, but this reflects the agreement that was signed.

One other thing I'd like to mention is another great axiom, and that is that ``the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'' Unfortunately, I didn't know that that road went smack-dab in the middle of Washington, D.C.

The fact is, this is a good bill, and every American out there who is paying too much for their energy costs, paying too much every time you go to the pump and you fill up your car with gasoline or you go on a vacation and you curse those gasoline pumps, knows full well that we are trying to do everything we can on the Republican side of the aisle to lower your gas prices.

We're trying to do that by forming this agreement with Mexico. A win- win. You've heard that term a lot today, because it is. It will create jobs both in Mexico and the United States.

Pemex, the Mexican oil company, does not have the deepwater drilling capabilities that our oil companies do, and so Mexico reached out to us and asked us if we would agree to a treaty to work together with them so that we could jointly drill.

And isn't it about time that America looks to its neighbors, its friends, its allies in the region, like Mexico, instead of having to rely on the thugs in the Middle East for our oil.

I think it is about time that America and the Western Hemisphere become energy independent, that we produce our own oil in this country and in this continent. And when we do so, what's going to happen? We will reduce the likelihood that we will have to get into a war because of some oil issue. We reduce the likelihood that some of these despots from other countries, like Venezuela or other countries in the Middle East, literally hold us--excuse the pun--but hold us over the barrel, and ask us to commit to things that maybe we would rather not commit to, or play their silly games.

Wouldn't you much rather rely on a country and a friend and a neighbor like Mexico to be able to jointly drill, develop that oil, lower gas prices, and create jobs for American and Mexican citizens. This is truly a win/win. Let's not let, in some minds, the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact is this is the language that Mexico had asked us to agree to, and we're simply trying to move the ball ahead. We can do a lot of gamesmanship today and spout off about this or that, but this is the agreement that was signed almost a couple of years ago. And again, the administration dragged their feet for the last couple of years to get this ultimately to the floor. Thank goodness we

have a chairman over here that took the bull by the horns and said, We're going to do this. We're going to do this for the American people because it's a no-brainer. So it's basically time, I agree, for us to do this in a bipartisan fashion, get off our dead derrieres, and get the job done.

Actually, that is not correct.

No, that's not what I just said. I don't appreciate having words put in my mouth. That's not what I said.

What I said was that the language that we've agreed to here is the language that I believe embodies the spirit of the agreement between us and Mexico. I believe it's exactly what the President has been asking for.

Mr. Chairman, this little document here, the Constitution of the United States, is something that we all cherish, something when we were all sworn in we raised our right arm to the square and we said that we would uphold this document. It is the framework this Nation is built upon. There are certain unalienable rights that are created in that document that we just can't waive away.

Some concerns about these rights are embedded in this bill. I have real concerns about American citizens being detained for an unspecified amount of time. I believe that this amendment goes a long way toward shedding the light, the light of transparency, on how these American citizens are handled. I think that's the very least that we can do as a body to make sure that our people's fundamental rights of freedom are protected.

One of the great leaders and Founding Fathers of this Nation, Benjamin Franklin, once said:

Those who are willing to trade their freedom for security

deserve neither and shall probably lose both.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio for standing so strong for an American patriot. I believe his motives are extremely noble and good, but I don't believe this is the right way to handle it.

I am the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs. Brazil comes under my purview. While we have points of trouble with all of our bilateral relationships, we don't necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water.

This is an extreme measure. It would punish a lot of very innocent people who my colleague spoke of right before me, innocent people that are trying to immigrate or come work or study in the United States from Brazil.

I want to commit to the gentleman from Ohio that, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, I will do everything within my power to work with him, if it requires hearings, whatever it takes. I want to help you bring justice. I do not believe that this is the right way to do it. In fact, I think it would be very counterproductive in our relationship with Brazil.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I might add that this amendment was one that was offered by my colleague David Schweikert from Arizona last year, and it passed on a voice vote.

Department of Homeland Security, DHS, has long viewed State and local governments as valuable partners that can help serve a helpful role in assisting DHS in fulfilling its responsibility with respect to immigration enforcement, and it continues to welcome that participation.

In order to avoid complying with their obligation to share information with DHS, local governments have taken on a ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy known as ``sanctuary policies.''

With the implementation of sanctuary policies, State and local law enforcement officers are barred from asking people about their immigration status or reporting them to Federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary policies are bad public policy because States or cities that institute sanctuary policies become magnets for illegal immigration. Illegal immigration results in higher costs of living; reduced job availability; lower wages; higher crime rates; fiscal hardship on hospitals and substandard quality of care for residents; burdens on public services, increasing their costs and diminishing their availability; and a reduction of the overall quality of life.

Sanctuary policies are expensive and shift the cost of illegal immigration onto citizens and legal immigrants. Because of the difficulty States have in collecting taxes from persons who are not lawfully present, many are utilizing State and local benefits and resources without contributing their fair share.

Sanctuary policies serve as a perverse incentive for illegal alien families to move to those States or cities who institute such policies. Accommodating those who violate our immigration law encourages others to follow the same path and gives prospective immigrants little incentive to pursue the legal path of immigration when they can sidestep the process and gain the same benefits.

Sanctuary policies also insult those legal immigrants who patiently waited for months and years for the U.S. State Department and DHS to approve their application and paid thousands of dollars in travel, legal, and medical fees to abide by the entry, employment, health, and processing laws and regulations.

Sanctuary policies conflict with Federal law. Recognizing the adoption of sanctuary policies as a growing impediment to combating the wave of illegal aliens residing in the country, Congress adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 that barred State and local governments from prohibiting employees from providing, receiving, and sharing information on those here illegally with Federal Government immigration officials.

Sanctuary policy denies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement critical assistance to enable it to accomplish its statutorily mandated mission to identify and ultimately remove those here illegally who are currently in State or local custody.

Sanctuary policies undermine national security efforts and create an environment in which terrorists and individuals of national security concern go unnoticed and uninterrupted.

Sanctuary cities tell those who are here illegally that the laws of our country don't matter. Sanctuary city policies encourage illegal immigration and weaken our Nation's ability to secure our borders. They contribute to a flood of illegal immigrants in this country today.

During the immigration reform debate, sanctuary cities should not be overlooked. This policy is creating an even bigger illegal immigration problem.

With money so tight these days, cities which are purposely skirting Federal law should not benefit from Federal law enforcement funding. The funds should be used for those cities who are actively enforcing the law.

So, in a nutshell, what this amendment would do is disallow any funds from this particular legislation to go to sanctuary cities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I was just going to say, my interpretation of the law is exactly as it's stated in the law that we passed in 1996 and nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I'm driven today to rise because I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Max Baucus, that ObamaCare is a train wreck to our economy. As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 45, I unequivocally support a full repeal of this onerous law.

Since the Supreme Court has delineated it as a tax, it's clear that obligations or commitments to not raise taxes on the middle class have gone by the wayside. In fact, this will be one of the largest tax increases on the middle class known to man. In fact, there's a hidden tax in this bill on medical devices, lifesaving medical devices.

My mother, 90 years old, has a pacemaker, and that keeps her alive. The next time she gets one, she's going to have to pay a tax on that, and so is every other senior citizen who has a pacemaker. I think this is just flat out wrong.

Also, the Maricopa Community College district just recently reclassified 700 professors from full-time status to part-time status so they don't have to pay this onerous tax.

Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible bill. It needs to be repealed.

Mr. Chairman, balancing our budget goes way beyond taxes and spending. It will define who we are as a Nation and ensure prosperity and opportunity for all Americans going forward.

According to two prominent Stanford University economists, John Cogan and John Taylor, the Ryan budget would raise gross domestic product by 1 percentage point by 2014.

Well, just what does that mean?

They explained it. It's equal to about $1,500 for every household in the United States--$1,500 for every household in the United States. By 2024, they estimated GDP would increase by 3 percentage points, to $4,000 per household. That growth, that kind of growth can't be ignored.

Putting our budget, moreover, our economy, on a sustainable budget, is a moral imperative, and we owe it to the men and women retiring tomorrow, as well as my newest granddaughter, who will be born in April.

The Ryan budget also recognizes that our current tax structure is holding our Nation's prosperity back. I applaud the goal of collapsing our Tax Code to just two lower rates of 10 and 25 percent.

We need pro-growth policies that will grow our economy and create jobs. Tax reform is the answer. At the end of the day, we don't need more taxes; we need more taxpayers, and new jobs will do just that.

Containing the size, scope, and cost of government has got to be a priority here. The more money siphoned from the economy to support government programs means less money in the economy to support private investment, innovation, job creation and wealth for all Americans. We've done this before and we can do it again.

I listened with a little bit of incredibility as I listened to the gentleman from Maryland do a little bit of revisionist history. He talked about the late nineties, and gave the credit to the President for balancing the budget.

Well, I was here in the Republican House of Representatives, the first Republican House of Representatives in 40 years, and I like to take a little bit of credit for that too. I think that the Republican Congress got the ball rolling.

But at the end of the day, I don't care if the President takes the credit for that. In fact, after we passed welfare reform three times, finally, the President kind of came along, kicking and screaming, and he signed welfare reform into law. And 50 percent fewer families in America have to rely on welfare. They have jobs.

I'd like to see us balance the budget, not just for my children, but for my grandchildren. And I'll tell you what: if President Obama's willing to do that with us, like President Clinton reached across the aisle to a Republican Congress, I will be happy to be the first in line to give him credit for that because I believe all America will benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving in Phoenix, Arizona on their forty-fifth anniversary.

After racing since a teenager, Bob Bondurant was in a tragic accident during a race flipping his car eight times, injuring his ribs, legs, feet, and back. Determined to help drivers of all levels avoid accidents like his own, Mr. Bondurant took his passion of racing and turned it into an opportunity to advise and instruct others. On February, 14, 1968, he opened the Bondurant Driving School with three cars and three students. From this small start, the Bondurant School grew and in 1990 opened their purpose-built driver training facility in Phoenix, Arizona--the Firebird Raceway.

The world-famous Bondurant School established a name for themselves by sticking to their core principle and driving motivation to offer professional and everyday drivers with the best track-intensive training in the world. Throughout their 45 years in operation, the Bondurant School has trained more than four-hundred thousand people to become safe and effective drivers both on and off the racetrack.

This milestone is a shining reminder of how core principles, hard- work, close friends, and a passion for your work produce lasting results. Today, I am pleased to call on my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Bondurant racing family on their impressive accomplishment and core ethos of driver safety.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving in Phoenix, Arizona on their forty-fifth anniversary.

After racing since a teenager, Bob Bondurant was in a tragic accident during a race flipping his car eight times, injuring his ribs, legs, feet, and back. Determined to help drivers of all levels avoid accidents like his own, Mr. Bondurant took his passion of racing and turned it into an opportunity to advise and instruct others. On February, 13, 1968, he opened the Bondurant Driving School with three cars and three students. From this small start, the Bondurant School grew and in 1990 opened their purpose-built driver training facility in Phoenix, Arizona--the Firebird Raceway.

The world-famous Bondurant School established a name for themselves by sticking to their core principle and driving motivation to offer professional and everyday drivers with the best track-intensive training in the world. Throughout their forty-five years in operation, the Bondurant School has trained more than four-hundred thousand people to become safe and effective drivers both on and off the racetrack.

This milestone is a shining reminder of how core principles, hard- work, close friends, and a passion for your work produce lasting results. Today, I am pleased to call on my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Bondurant racing family on their impressive accomplishment and core ethos of driver safety.

`` . . . forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.''

Amendment XXVI:

Section 1:

``The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.''

Section 2:

``The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.''