Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed last week to read about some criticizing the general aviation community as a ``special interest group'' that was trying to stand in the way of progress and modernization.

We are for modernization, as modernization has already taken off, and we have been partners from the very beginning. The fact of the matter is

that GA is not some special interest group. We are family, friends, and neighbors. There are doctors, teachers, community leaders, and, most importantly, small businessmen that rely on general aviation to create jobs.

They are just like, in fact, my son, Ryan, who is with us today, who absolutely loves aviation and wants to be a pilot when he grows up. And that is because he has been exposed to general aviation.

General aviation is an important part of our community and our economy. It employs 1.2 million people and adds $219 billion, Mr. Speaker, of economic output.

So I ask my colleagues to side with general aviation on any bill that comes to the floor, like the one that came out of the Transportation Committee, and vote against such measures.

Moving a system where everyone is treated equally to a system where one user benefits over another is a bad idea and one that we should reject as anathema to American exceptionalism.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the service of Major General David E. Wilmot of the United States Army for his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to our Nation. General Wilmot distinguished himself through exceptionally meritorious service from October 24th, 1985 to July 30th, 2017, while serving as an Assistant Surgeon General and National Guard Bureau Surgeon, Headquarters Department of the Army.

His lasting contributions include an exemplary career as a family practice physician, flight surgeon, commander, and deputy headquarters surgeon, in numerous assignments across the Active and National Guard components of the U.S. Army. He quickly established himself as a unique combination of Soldier, leader, clinician, and key strategic thinker, culminating in service as the Assistant Surgeon General/Deputy Chief of Staff, Quality and Safety for U.S. Army Medical Command/Office of the Surgeon General, a position he was hand selected for.

His singular Warrior centered focus on reducing harm and enhancing the quality care through compassion, excellence, transparency and accountability resulted in better and safer care for Military Health System beneficiaries across the globe. He performed with consummate distinction in all of his assignments, the impact of which stems from his capacity as a proven senior healthcare executive, and dogged champion for quality care and patient safety. The distinguished accomplishments of General Wilmot culminate a long and distinguished career in the service of his country and reflect great credit upon him, the Army Medical Department, the United States Army and the Department of Defense.

General Wilmot is a native of Brownsburg, Indiana and married to Mrs. Lori Wilmot.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the selfless service of Major General David E. Wilmot as he and his family proceed to the next chapter in his remarkable career and continue to serve our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and salute the distinguished ``Voice of the Heartland'', Greg Garrison, who has announced that he will retire from his radio program on June 9, 2017. I wish to express my admiration and appreciation for Mr. Garrison and his constant dedication to his conservative Hoosier values.

Greg's commitment to the rule of law and justice began before he took to the airwaves, serving the community through his law firm Garrison Law, which focuses on personal injury, business, and commercial law. It was through his diligent work in his practice that he gained fame during the high profile prosecution of boxer Mike Tyson in 1992. That case lead to opportunities to offer legal analysis nationwide for major trials such as O.J. Simpson and Timothy McVeigh, and on various media platforms such as 60 Minutes, the Today Show, 48 Hours, the FOX News Channel, Rivera Live and ESPN.

Greg became a Hoosier treasure through his radio program that began twenty years ago. His program, Garrison, became an institution of measured thought and Hoosier values. He connected with his listeners through his warm demeanor that sounded more like a friend than a commentator. He was a positive influence on the lives of the countless Hoosiers that spent their mornings listening to him.

I have known Greg for almost as long as he has been on the air. As Secretary of State, I was a guest on his show on several occasions, speaking about the need to improve election integrity with the adoption of the state's photo ID law. We also discussed investigations into voter fraud and redistricting reform. As a member of Congress, my appearances were more frequent as a regular on his program until he cut back his hours and moved to a later timeslot. I will always remember he asked tough, but fair questions teeming with Hoosier common sense.

While it will be sad to not hear his voice over Indianapolis' airwaves every day, he will not be disappearing from the scene completely. He plans to be on the radio every now and again and he plans to stay active in his law practice. But his daily presence will be missed.

Congratulations to Greg on twenty years of service to the Hoosier state and a happy and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a prominent Hoosier leader and my close friend, Mr. Nelson Jaeger Becker, who passed away on April 7, 2017 surrounded by his loving family.

Nelson was born in Logansport, Indiana on September 16, 1940. He graduated from Logansport High School, received his Bachelor of Business Administration from Tulane University, and his Doctor of Jurisprudence from Tulane University Law School. He also graduated from the Culver Summer Naval School and served in the United States Air Force as a JAG officer where he attained the rank of captain.

Nelson was passionate about the law, the legislative process, serving the community, and politics. He practiced law in Logansport from 1968 up until his passing. He dutifully served the residents of Carroll and Cass Counties as their State Representative for over a decade in the Indiana House of Representatives. During that time, he served as Majority Whip and Speaker Pro Tempore. Nelson continued to serve the state legislature as a government affairs professional for several industries providing the part-time legislators with facts to help them make decisions on policy issues facing the General Assembly. Nelson's service to the great State of Indiana did not go unnoticed. He was a recipient of Indiana's highest civilian award, The Sagamore of the Wabash.

Nelson truly cared about the City of Logansport and it showed through his actions. He was a former member of the Board of Directors of Logansport Savings Bank and the Board of Directors of the First National Bank of Logansport. He was also the former President of the Cass County YMCA Board of Directors and the United Fund Board of Directors and held memberships with the First United Methodist Church, the Elks, and American Legion.

I had known Nelson for many years and always appreciated his advice and council on a variety of issues. Nelson was one of the very first people to support me in my bid for public service. And he was quite literally the first person to turn his verbal support into concrete action. I will never forget that . . . or the small group of Logansport leaders who met with me in Nelson's house one evening in 2001 to support my goals for public service.

Nelson leaves Dixie, his beloved wife, five sons, and fifteen grandchildren to carry on his legacy of service to fellow Hoosiers. Anyone who knew him well knows what a great loss his passing is for our community and the State of Indiana. May he rest in peace, he will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a decent and generous American, Mr. Robert George Evans, Jr., who passed away on March 16, 2017 surrounded by his loving family.

Robbie was a lifelong New Orleanian. He graduated from Archbishop Shaw High School and earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Management from the University of New Orleans. After college he rose to the position of Vice President for the family steel drum business, Evans Cooperage. He later founded Con-Tech International which began selling industrial steel drum parts and related items. Under his leadership, the company has grown into an international corporation supplying steel and hundreds of custom manufactured parts to various industries across the globe.

I met Robbie through a mutual friend, Jerry Bonnet. It was a few years after Hurricane Katrina and I was still Indiana Secretary of State. My office had ``adopted'' an inner city school in Indianapolis, and I heard that Robbie and New Orleans were doing some amazing

work with parental choice in schools in the Hurricane's aftermath that basically destroyed a lot of public school infrastructure. We had been personal friends ever since that first meeting.

Robbie helped lead a ``Phoenix from the ashes'' movement in the New Orleans schools. The success was due to the need to throw away the old bureaucracy, rules, and the attitude that the schools existed for the adults in them rather than for the kids. Robbie helped turn that all- around, attracting national attention for the model. He devoted hundreds of hours annually to improving New Orleans public schools and the lives of the students attending them. He was an unapologetic advocate for inner-city students attending Lafayette Academy and Esperanza Charter School. He served as a board member for the Choice Foundation where he was both the Vice Chairman and Executive Committee member. Robbie served on many other boards and committees, each with a goal to improve and enhance the economic environment or educational opportunity of his community.

Robbie was a man of high character and integrity. He had a servant's heart for his community and those who live in it. His love for New Orleans and its culture was evident in his words and actions. Robbie was an art, architecture, and history enthusiast. He loved to travel the country and world meeting new people and experiencing different cultures. He was a friend to many people and an advocate for more. His obituary was correct in all respects, including that he indeed was a terrible driver.

Robbie leaves Barbara, his beloved wife of 34 years, his daughter and son, and many other family and friends to carry on his legacy of service to their communities. Anyone who knew him well knows what a great loss his passing is for New Orleans and our nation. Rest in peace Robbie, you will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman.

I am really proud, Mr. Speaker, of the Budget Committee. We did great work last week, and everyone was heard: six motions on the Republican side, six motions on the Democratic side, and the debate was civil. Tones weren't raised; theatrics, by and large, weren't employed; and we made the bill better. That was the process the week before that when the committees of jurisdiction had this legislation.

It is my hope that, as we pass this bill off the floor of the House-- and it is a bill being passed off the floor of the House and not into law right now--and as it goes to the Senate, that the bill will continue to be improved. That is the legislative process.

I am very proud of the members of the staff of the Budget Committee for being a major part of that process and starting that process. We did good work. You don't have to pass this bill to find out what is in it as we had to with ObamaCare. This process will continue.

I am very pleased, also, that we have Medicaid block grants, or lump sum payments to the States, that are available now to cover at least our able-bodied children and adults. It is a huge step forward in letting States have the flexibility they need to decide who really needs this assistance, how they should get it, and what they should get in terms of health care.

This is good legislation. This is what we were sent to do, and we are keeping our promises to the American people by passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a prominent Hoosier leader and my dear friend, Mr. Mark S. Davis, who passed away on March 4, 2017 surrounded by his loving family.

Mark was born in Kansas City, Missouri before moving to West Lafayette as a child. He graduated from West Lafayette High School and earned his law degree from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He began his career working in economic development in Indianapolis, Greater Lafayette, and Flint, Michigan before opening law practice in Lafayette.

Mark cared deeply for our community and it showed in what he was able to help the community thrive. He was one of many of a dedicated team to convince Subaru of Indiana Automotive to locate in Tippecanoe County nearly 30 years ago. This effort led to the creation of thousands of jobs and an incredible impact to our economy Mark was a vocal proponent of the Hoosier Heartland Corridor, the 36-mile highway upgrade which has improved access and safety while bolstering economic development in several Central Indiana counties.

Mark was a man of high character and integrity. He had a servant's heart for his fellow

Hoosiers and frequently worked pro bono legal cases for the less fortunate. I never met someone who had anything but positive comments about Mark. He was active in the Rotary Club of Lafayette Indiana and in the Tippecanoe Republican Party, where he served as Party Secretary. Just last summer Mark arranged for me to speak with the Rotary Club where he graciously introduced me before my remarks.

Mark leaves Mary Kay, his beloved wife, four daughters, and eight grandchildren to carry on his legacy of service to fellow Hoosiers. Anyone who knev--him well knows what a great loss his passing is for our community and the State of Indiana. May Mark rest in peace. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a prominent Hoosier leader and my dear friend, Mr. Maurice L. (Mauri) Williamson who passed away on January 30, 2017 surrounded by his loving family.

Mauri was born in Economy, Indiana and spent his childhood participating in 4-H. He served in the Navy Medical Corps until 1946, after which he received his undergraduate degree from Purdue University in 1950. He was known throughout the state as the executive secretary of the Purdue University Ag Alumni Association, a position he held for 37 years. During his Purdue career, Mauri helped found the National Ag Alumni Development Association (NAADA) and started the Ag Alumni Fish Fry.

Mauri put a lot of care and dedication into his work. After graduating from Purdue, he returned to the family farm, but he soon found he was better suited spending his time with people rather than with plants and animals. In 1961, he founded the Pioneer Village at the Indiana State Fair to preserve and display the history of Indiana agriculture. Mauri held court there each summer, visiting with his ever-expanding legion of friends acquired through his lifetime commitment to Purdue and to agriculture. He had a deep love for the Indiana State Fair and only missed attending while serving in the Navy during World War II.

I was first introduced to Mauri when I served as Indiana's Secretary of State. He made it clear to me, in the way only he could do, the importance of farming and agriculture community to the past, present and future of Indiana. Even today, my family, and especially my two young sons, enjoys the fruit of his labor each August when we visit the Pioneer Village at the best State Fair in the nation. As a member of Congress, I continue to keep our past conversations in mind when voting on agriculture issues.

Mauri leaves June, his beloved wife of 68 years, two children, three grandchildren and five great grandchildren to carry on his legacy of service to fellow Hoosiers. I believe this world is a better place because of his compassionate service to our community, state and nation. Rest in peace, Mauri. He will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 91, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 57) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability and State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 57.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 57.

Mr. Speaker, I was here also on this floor listening to the debate that just finished on H.J. Res. 58, and I have a feeling a lot of the same things are going to carry over because we are dealing with the same Department. In fact, we are dealing with the prior administration generally.

I was struck by the words that we need to ``give direction to the States.'' I think, by definition, those words demonstrate how one side here thinks that they know best; that their judgment is somehow better than the judgment of governors, of State legislators,

of parents, teachers, and superintendents themselves when it comes to this issue and, in fact, in a larger perspective, when it comes to most issues around here. We must give direction to the States--no.

The fact of the matter is, when the President signed into law, when we passed ESSA--the Every Student Succeeds Act--in a lot of ways we were saying to the States: You give the direction. You set the way that you think is best to educate your best assets. Your best assets, of course, being our next generation.

While we at the Federal level would like to be partners, the fact of the matter is it is their property. The tax dollars we are talking about are the property of the individuals living in the 50 States and other jurisdictions.

So now here we are using the Congressional Review Act to get rid of some regulations that are doing that very thing. We wrote a very specific law saying the States are in charge. Here we have a Federal agency inserting itself, not just interpreting law, but actually making law and taking us in the exact opposite direction that all of us intended.

When I say all of us, I say that in a very bipartisan way, Mr. Speaker, because--I am now in my fifth year of being chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education here in the House. My first 4 years were consumed working with past Chairman John Kline, current Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, other members of the committee, and all our Democratic counterparts in getting this very bipartisan law passed and signed into law.

Let me go back, Mr. Speaker, and set the table here. You will have to remember that under the No Child Left Behind law, which was the law of the land for some 13 years--perhaps a well-intentioned law, but completely unreasonable in terms of its forced, ridged, one-size-fits- all accountability system that heavily dictated how we would gauge and address school performance--that system represented a top-down approach in K-12 education. After 13 years, the data is in and the results are in. It simply didn't work.

So that is why just a little more than a year ago, Congress passed-- again, former President Obama signed into law in a very bipartisan way--the Every Student Succeeds Act. With this law, Republicans and Democrats worked together to reform our education system to ensure that all children are able to receive the education they deserve. It represents a fundamentally different approach to education and, in the words of one superintendent, empowers local leaders to ``dream and lead and transform public education in this country.''

Unfortunately, almost immediately after the bill became law, the Obama administration began its attempt to roll back these bipartisan reforms. With the Every Student Succeeds Act, Congress promised to reduce the Federal role and restore State and local control over K-12 education. The law empowers States to develop their own policies to hold schools accountable to parents and taxpayers.

For accountability to work, Mr. Speaker, it must be driven by the State and local leaders who are best equipped to directly address the issues in their school. Those leaders know better than any Federal bureaucrat in the Department of Education what their kids need, even down to what their kids' names are. I challenge any Federal bureaucrat to know better.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's flawed accountability regulation would reestablish the Washington-knows-best approach to accountability. It is the very same thing I mentioned earlier that we just heard regarding H.J. Res. 58. It is an approach that is deeply flawed.

How do I know? What is the best metric to prove the point that that Washington-knows-best approach is deeply flawed?

Look at it. Look at the test scores since the Federal Government has been involved in education. You see that they haven't gone up. Yet we have spent billions and billions of dollars since the 1970s here at the Federal level on local education to see no improvement in the test scores.

Not only does the regulation dictate prescriptive accountability requirements, but it violates many of the prohibitions that we put in on the Secretary of Education. As we all saw, the top-down approach simply didn't work. So that is why we repealed No Child Left Behind and passed a bill to transform K-12 education.

Our students deserve better than the failed policies of the past, and that is what the Every Student Succeeds Act does, if implemented as Congress intended.

Now, our intent was not ambiguous, and the law is far from silent. We were very specific in the law we wrote. Our specificity dictated that the States and localities were back in charge. They were driving the bus again. No pun intended.

The Department has taken some kind of ambiguity, I guess, some kind of silence, and has inserted themselves into the lawmaking role. That wasn't our intent.

Our intent was for a new role for the Department, a much smaller role for the Department, a less supervisory role for the Department, and a less punitive role for the Department, one that would simply ensure that our specifically written law, as passed off this floor, passed off the Senate floor, and eventually signed into law, was followed as we wrote it. So an example of that was we require the States to have plans for how they were going to test, that they would test, but nothing more prescriptive than that. That is just one example, the testing. There were some other parameters.

Then they were to submit those plans to the Federal Government, and the Department of Education was simply to check the box and make sure that the plans were done and otherwise comply with the law. The Department wasn't to be more prescriptive than that. It wasn't to give any more regulation than that. It wasn't to, frankly, give too much more direction than that because we recognize that this responsibility is primarily that of governors, State legislators, school superintendents, parents, and teachers.

Now, States are already working to implement the law in their school districts. I want to be very clear that this resolution in no way does anything to stymie those efforts. States should move straight ahead.

Instead, the resolution gives States the certainty they need to continue moving forward, confident that their plans will be reviewed by the Department of Education against the requirements of the statute and nothing more, with deference given to the judgment of these local legislators, local superintendents, et cetera, as the law requires.

We are also committed to working with the new administration to ensure States receive the support they need consistent with the limits placed in the statute.

So, my colleagues, by passing this resolution and blocking implementation of the Obama administration's flawed accountability rule, we can ensure that the promises we made under the Every Student Succeeds Act to restore State and local control in K-12 education are kept.

I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 57 and protect those important bipartisan reforms.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would only comment that the comments made to the rule in this regard--the ones I have seen--were almost all bad. They were negative against this rule, except for maybe a few groups.

I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) who is chairwoman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I finally realized what is happening here. What the other side considers ambiguous is really flexibility. I think that is the difference here. But, let's be clear. What we intended through ESSA was flexibility for the States. Nowhere in the law are we ambiguous about what we intended.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson), who, in the month that he has been here, has already injected a lot of energy to the committee and is doing a great job for his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman: ESSA was a landmark bipartisan achievement. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's partisan implementation of it is what brings us here today. Instead of choosing to take every opportunity to work with us, the Obama administration is choosing to do through the regulatory process what it couldn't achieve legislatively.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello), who is doing a great job for his State.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The effect of this action will not halt State implementation efforts. Let me say that again. The effect of this action will not halt State implementation efforts.

Our intent is to require clarity and consistency so implementation can, in fact, continue. States are continuing to develop State plans that comply with the law, as you have already seen being done across the country. The States and school districts are in the driver's seat here, Mr. Speaker, and they should continue moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the gentlewoman that I agree that we have to be careful to make sure underserved children are not vulnerable, which is what we did in the underlying law in a bipartisan manner when we passed it and when the President signed the law.

I reject the premise that State and local leaders, however, cannot be trusted to deliver an excellent education to all of their students. More importantly, that premise was rejected by Congresses in ESSA itself.

Beyond that, the criticism just levied is simply not true. The Department of Education has the right and, indeed, the obligation to enforce the law. That has never been in dispute.

There are clear requirements in this statute for States to develop ways to hold their schools accountable and to report information about school performance to parents and their communities. That duty continues.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman talks about accountability. I want to reassure all the Members here that will be voting on this joint resolution that we are not throwing accountability out the window.

What we decided last year when we passed the Every Student Succeeds Act is that accountability was a good thing. But the best leaders and the best persons to determine what that accountability should be and what that accountability should look like are found in our States and are found in our local jurisdictions. They know our best assets the best--our best assets being our children. They know what they need.

So we are not throwing accountability out the window. We are saying accountability is to be measured at the State level by the States, by the local jurisdictions, and they are to simply report to the Department of Education what their accountability plan is in a transparent way so that, again, parents, teachers, and taxpayers can decide if that State is doing a good job, so that people like the NAACP--if they are and should be, as we all should be, worried about achievement gaps--could affect how to close those achievement gaps in those respective States and, by the way, perhaps come up with a more effective way, a better plan, a more aggressive plan to close that achievement gap rather than the one-size-fits-all bureaucracy that is the Federal Department of Education. That is the whole point.

Secondly, regarding civil rights. Nothing in this resolution that takes back this draconian rulemaking from the Department of Education affects civil rights. We are very clear in the Every Student Succeeds Act that the civil rights protections remain. We agreed with that in a bipartisan way, and all of that remains. Don't let the gentleman from Colorado scare you into thinking anything different.

There was a lot of talk about uncertainty from previous speakers-- uncertainty for States--and that blocking implementation of these regulations will create that uncertainty. Let me address that for just a couple of minutes.

We, Congress, cannot allow Federal agencies to ignore the clear prohibitions against executive overreach. These regulations clearly attempt to reassert Federal control that was returned to the States by Congress under ESSA.

Repealing these regulations is the only way to give States and school districts the certainty that they need with sufficient time to move the implementation process forward. The law itself provides enough guidance. We were very specific how we wrote this law. We were very specific in the requirements needed. That removes the need to have the kind of rulemaking that the Department of Education, either through habit or through direct intent, is trying to do here. We don't need to do it here.

The law itself lays out clear criteria for the State plans. It states explicitly that the onus is on the Department of Education to demonstrate how a plan does not comply with the law that we wrote and that the President signed into law. It does not require, and the States are not required, to go jump through the hoops that the Department is trying to have them jump through now through this rulemaking.

The law also requires the Department to review the State plans with deference to State and local judgments. The Department is trying to take that judgment away from the States and put it under its own umbrella.

Under the law, as long as States can demonstrate that their plans comply with the statute, they will be approved. We wrote that into the law. Because of this, States can have the certainty that the work they began can continue. The Department, with this rule, is trying to unravel all that. The resolution stops the Department from doing that.

I know Congressman Costello mentioned teacher performance. Others have talked about student assessment participation rates. Let me give you a few examples for the record, Mr. Speaker. ESSA allowed States to determine how to hold schools accountable for assessing students. The final rule limits States to only four options for assessing students and requires schools to implement a plan to address low test participation--not required in the law, not part of what we are doing here. The Department, by doing that, is making up law.

Regarding teacher performance and some things that Mr. Costello referenced, ESSA explicitly prohibited the Secretary from mandating the creation of teacher evaluation systems. As the Federal Government, we are getting out of the business of teacher evaluation systems. It didn't mean the States couldn't do it. It didn't mean that most States wouldn't do it. However, the final rule requires States to establish a statewide definition for what an ineffective teacher means that differentiates between categories of teachers.

Now, if you look at this in effect, in practical terms, it would be almost impossible for States to fulfill this requirement without implementing a teacher and school leader evaluation, something the law specifically didn't require, specifically prohibited. Yet, here we are with the Department's rule basically making States do it. Not what was intended. Not what we wrote. Not what we voted on on the floor of this House, and not what was signed into law by the President of the United States at the time.

So these are the kinds of things that we are fighting against here, Mr. Speaker. These are the kinds of things that H.J. Res. 57, and H.J. Res. 58 for that matter, would stop the Department from doing. H.J. Res. 57 protects the positive reforms Congress made with Every Student Succeeds Act and ensures that those reforms are implemented as Congress intended. In doing so, the resolution preserves State and local control over K-12 education and provides States and school districts the certainty they need to proceed with the plans that they are already in the process of writing.

That is why a number of groups--including the National Governors Association; AASA, the School Superintendents Association; and the Council of the Great City Schools--have spoken out in support of the resolution. It is also why the National School Boards Association supports this resolution, and it is why H.J. Res. 57 is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste.

I am confident that Congress will continue working in a bipartisan manner to empower our State and local communities to take the lead in accountability. There will be accountability. By putting a stop to the Obama administration's flawed and overreaching accountability regulation, however, we can keep the promise we made to reduce the Federal role, restore local control, and ensure all children receive the high-quality education that they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Hoosier and my dear friend, Dr. Raymond Gordon Klockow who passed away January 13, 2017. Not only was he a constituent in my district, but he was also a good friend to our family and to our office. Most recently, he served as our county coordinator in Jasper County.

Gordon was born in South Bend, Indiana and graduated from South Bend Central High School in 1965. He then attended Purdue University and received a Bachelor of Science in 1970, graduated from the Loyola University School of Dentistry in 1974 with a Doctor of Dental Surgery, and completed his General Practice Residency at Berkshire Medical Center in 1975. That same year he moved to Rensselaer, Indiana and began practicing dentistry at the Clinic of Family Medicine.

Gordon took a lot of pride in his work. He practiced general dentistry in Rensselaer at the Clinic of Family Medicine from 1975- 1983, Hillcrest Family Dental Center, P.C. from 1983-2011, and Sheets Medical Practice from 2014-2015. It was at his dental office where I first met Gordon. It seemed we talked for hours about my family's profession, dentistry. And of course we talked politics in that first meeting, and every conversation since. But talk from him of politics and American Exceptionalism in every conversation is not surprising to all who knew Gordon. He put a lot of care and dedication to the smiles of so many Hoosiers during the course of his career. Gordon himself was rarely ever seen without a smile on his face and it was infectious to those around him.

One of the many things I admired about Gordon was his servant's heart. He served as the Jasper County Coroner, a Jasper County Deputy Coroner, and a Newton County Deputy Coroner. He was board certified in Pain Management, Forensic Medicine, Forensic Dentistry, and as a Forensic Examiner. Gordon was also currently a managing partner of Ritz Cinema in Rensselaer where he took great pride in the service he provided for the community.

Some of my most vivid memories of Gordon were at the town hall meetings we have in our district. I frequently asked him to help us with the meetings, sometimes as a host and other times as a participant in the reading of the Constitution. He was the perfect leader, in body and temperament, to do so. Gordon was the type of individual who always asked what he could do to help and would go above and beyond for anyone who needed him.

Gordon leaves Nancy, his beloved wife for over 27 years, three children, and seven grandchildren to carry on his legacy of service to fellow Hoosiers. Anyone who knew him well knows what a great loss his passing is for the community. Mr. Speaker, we lost a good one last week. He will be missed. Rest in peace Gordon, you will not be forgotten.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairwoman for yielding the time. It is a pleasure to continue our work together on this very important issue.

It has taken us 6 years to get to today, the first real step in repealing what is one of the most insidious laws that ever came out of these Chambers--insidious because it was built on lies. Remember ``You can keep your doctor if you want to,'' ``You can keep your plan if you want to''? Lies. Remember when premiums were to go down because this, of course, Mr. Chairman, was the Affordable Care Act? Lies.

The gentleman from Kentucky made some assertions just a while ago. I want to take a look at the State of Kentucky itself. Four plans left the ObamaCare exchange at the end of 2016 in the State of Kentucky. Of the remaining plans, each increased their premiums by double digits: 22.9 percent, 29.3 percent, and 33.7 percent, respectively, for 2017. And Kentucky's exchange enrollment decreased by 12 percent.

How, Mr. Chairman, is this helping people?

Look, if we didn't care about people, we could stand by and watch this failed plan, this insidious law continue to implode, continue to hurt people. Instead, we stand here ready to erase the foundation that this law was based on and put forth a better one, one that doesn't leave anyone behind, one that is based on market-driven, consumer- driven, patient-driven needs and expectations and allows them to, for example, keep their job.

What do I mean by that, Mr. Chairman? Consider this. Not only do we have bad healthcare outcomes as a result of this insidious law, people are losing work. They are being robbed of their dignity to work. Since ObamaCare, 21 percent of businesses are reducing the number of employees, their wages and salaries and their benefits, including their retirement benefits.

So this insidious law is not only having detrimental implications on our health care and people's health, but it is taking away the very dignity that they have to work.

It is also spelling the death of health savings accounts, proven over the last several years to be part of the solution to consumer-driven health care. The idea that you can save for your healthcare expenses, with or without the government's help, so that you can make value decisions as to your health care without government interference. It leads to better patient outcomes. It leads to freedom to make healthcare decisions absent the oversight of the government. ObamaCare all but outlawed health savings accounts. I think

health savings accounts are probably in every one of those different plans the chairwoman pointed out.

So we are offering a replacement. We are offering solutions. We are offering a better way.

I thank Chairman Walker for organizing the time tonight, and I congratulate the gentleman on leading this organization. I look forward to working with him.

Mr. Speaker, we could all stand up here and take the barbs that have been leveled by some as to how we don't care about people or how we are this or that or how we are just focused on the numbers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We could sit idly by and watch this terrible, insidious law continue to implode, to continue to hurt more and more Americans--insidious because it is built on lies, like you can keep your doctor if you want to, like you can keep your health plan if you want to--not true in any case. Instead, we are here tonight, talking with the American people about ``what could be'' when we first get rid of this terrible law--something that many of us have voted on 60 times or more to do. We now have a real opportunity with not only a Republican House, but a Republican Senate, and with a President who is willing to work with us.

The verdict is in. In Indiana alone and in my district, I have met person after person who has horror stories about the failure of ObamaCare.

I spoke with Anna, whose husband, Jack, survived stage IV cancer. With Jack's cancer only having a 30 percent survival rate, it is crucial that he has effective doctors who know how to treat and how to work the problem. Instead, Anna's doctor quit practicing medicine--well before his planned retirement age--due to the burdensome costs of ObamaCare, which is something that the gentleman from Georgia also mentioned.

It is not just doctors who are unable to perform their duties--their profession--under this insidious law, but also insurance companies that are withdrawing from the market as we speak. Last year alone, we saw Indiana's exchange lose 50 percent of its health insurance carriers due to regulations of ObamaCare. This included IU Health, which covered almost 30,000 Hoosiers. This lack of options means that healthy Hoosiers are being forced to pay for coverage that they don't want, that they don't need, and that, in fact, may do more harm than good.

I spoke with Mark from Tippecanoe County, in my district, who talked about the harmful impact of ObamaCare. He stated that he was forced to buy insurance with only four doctors listed as providers for the entire county. What good does this insurance do Mark or the rest of us if he can't even use it and schedule an appointment?

I am very proud to have worked on this Republican Study Committee with the Health Care Task Force, led by my good friend, Dr. Phil Roe of Tennessee. Over a period of a year or so, we have

put together a plan that is a very real, patient-centered, consumer- focused, free market-driven replacement for ObamaCare, but with one big difference--our plan would work because it harnesses the value that we all have innately as Americans and, really, as humans, which is the ability to value price once we have the information.

If I left this Chamber and, God forbid, I broke my leg on my way down the steps, I wouldn't worry too much about where I was going--just to the nearest emergency room. But that is not most of our healthcare transactions; that is not most of our healthcare decisions. Most of our healthcare decisions can be made by attaching value to the services and products that we want. We do it in every other part of our consumer- driven life. Why can't we finally do it with health care? That is what people like Dr. Phil Roe have practiced in medicine their entire lives. That is what he has taught me. That is what we know as American consumers. Why can't we be trusted to do that with our health care?

Whether the intent is malicious, whether the intent is malign, the intent of the people who support ObamaCare--that insidious law--is wrong. It says: just give your life over to these few people, and let them run it for a while, and everything will be fine. Unfortunately, throughout not only American history, every time it has been tried here and every time it has been tried in world history, it has failed. Control over the individual has failed, and it will do the same, as we are seeing every day now, with regard to our health care.

Let's repeal this insidious law, and let's get back on the track of replacing it with something that we all can trust, beginning with ourselves.

I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to honor a distinguished Hoosier, Dr. Dane A. Miller, whom passed away on February 10, 2015. I would like to express my appreciation for his community and economic development leadership in our state and nation. Most important to me, he was a friend who always gave me good, direct advice.

Although Dr. Miller was born and raised a Buckeye, Hoosiers are proud to claim him as one of our own. Dr. Miller graduated from General Motors Institute with a B.S. in Mechanical Materials Science Engineering, and a Masters degree in Materials Science from the University of Cincinnati. While performing as Director of Biomedical Engineering for Zimmer U.S.A. in Warsaw, Indiana, Dr. Miller simultaneously earned his Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Cincinnati.

Shortly after earning his doctorate, Dr. Miller served as Director of Biomedical Engineering for Cutter Biomedical. After three years he returned to Warsaw and joined three others to form Biomet, Inc. which eventually became one of the premier orthopedic manufacturing companies in the world. He would later start several more companies in the medical device industry, helping cement Warsaw, Indiana, as ``The Orthopedic Capital of the World''.

Dr. Miller had served on numerous boards, including as Director of Biomet 3i, LLC, Biomet Sports Medicine, LLC, Soft Tissue Regeneration, Inc., and 1st Source Corporation. He also devoted his time and entrepreneurial spirit to his adopted home as Director of the Indiana Economic Development Corporation. As a proud alumnus, Dr. Miller also served as Trustee to the University of Cincinnati Foundation.

Dr. Miller was highly regarded in his community for his philanthropic and business endeavors. He was often recognized for this leadership earning many awards and honors throughout his life including: Outstanding Small Business Person in the State of Indiana, Business Week's Top Performing CEO, Warsaw Chamber of Commerce Man of the Year, and the Phoenix Lifetime Achievement Award for the Healthcare Industry. Dr. and Mrs. Miller established the Dr. Dane and Mary Louise Miller Foundation in order to provide financial assistance to various charitable organizations and educational scholarships.

Dr. Miller leaves his beloved wife Mary Louise, two daughters and four grandchildren to carry on his innovative and entrepreneurial spirit. His work helped drive advancements in biomaterials and implant design that helped patients around the world live better lives. His academic and economic contributions, both direct results of his pioneering efforts, to our state and its citizens will be an endearing legacy for future generations of Hoosiers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise awareness for Angelman syndrome, an extremely rare neurogenetic disorder. This Sunday, February 15, is recognized as International Angelman Day.

Originally described by a pediatrician in 1965, Angelman now affects roughly one out of every 15,000 children or young adults. They are also known as Angels.

My son, Teddy, is one of those Angels. There are hundreds more just like him. My wife and I are extremely blessed by Teddy's presence in our lives, and we are thankful for the joy he brings.

In recognition of International Angelman Day, I encourage you to join me to increase awareness for Angelman syndrome this Sunday. You can participate by using the #angelmanday on Twitter and Facebook or by visiting www.angelman.org. Together, Mr. Speaker, we can increase awareness and support of Angels everywhere.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman is exactly right. By the way, while I am at it, let me just say that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), in my humble opinion, is a blessing not only for this Congress and for the people of Georgia but for this country because of the tenacity you bring, the energy you bring. If I had a list of all the pieces of legislation, all the things that we have gotten done around here for the last 4 years that you and I have been in here, that you have had your fingers on, that you weren't mentioned about, the work you have done behind the scenes, that list would be very long and would probably go out these doors.

One of the things that you have done, that we have done together, is for the first time since the Korean war, we have cut discretionary spending 4 years in a row. It hasn't been done since the Korean war.

Now, as you pointed out in earlier slides, there is a lot more work to do, and we are going to continue to get to it. We need a partner at some point. We need people to put on what I call their big boy pants and their big girl skirts and get to the bottom of this, and that is getting to a balanced budget.

I will tell you that this pie chart is very good. You are exactly right. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Woodall is exactly right. The two blue pieces that we pull out for you in this pie chart are what you would get at in a traditional, regular budget process.

This is what we call our discretionary spending both in the nondefense area and in the defense area. As you can see, it is really no more than one-third--or 40 percent--of our total Federal spending. The rest, all that red that you see there is on what we call autopilot spending because the budget, line by line, doesn't touch that. Why? Because it is on autopilot.

That is your Medicare, that is your Medicaid, that is your Social Security, and that is your interest that we owe ourselves and other countries for all this debt because that is a contract. That red is just going to continue to grow as a percentage of that pie until it takes up nearly all of it over the next several years.

Then we are not going to have the money we need to spend on the things that constitutionally we need to spend it on, like defense and like some of the other 167 other agencies around here. That is a bad, bad situation. It is unsustainable.

Until you get to the underlying law, that is Social Security, that is Medicare, that is Medicaid, and that is the other mandatory spending, until you reform those programs, until they fit how we live in the 21st century, so they can be saved for our children and for our grandchildren, then you are really never going to get to balancing the budget or paying down this awful debt.

I can't imagine anything more immoral than passing on to future Americans--our children and grandchildren who do not yet exist--this burden. Talk about taxation without representation.

Well, thank you, Mr. Woodall. I appreciate your letting me as a member

of the Budget Committee, under the excellent leadership of Chairman Price, chime in here. We are going to have a budget, the fifth time we will do it in a row here, by the statutory deadline. We intend to get it over to the Senate, and we intend to move this country forward.

Again, I say, Mr. Speaker, chiming in with Mr. Woodall, I hope we have a partner this time. I hope we have personal responsibility on the floor of this House and the floor of the other Chamber.