Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that this is, indeed, serious business. Looking out for the workers of America is perhaps the most serious business that we do. We have heard a lot of speechifying about trying to do the right thing for the average person in America. On the way out the door, the Obama administration promulgated two regulations that attempt to force government-tight retirement on people when they don't want it and take away their consumer protection rights under ERISA. That is very serious business. But instead of having a debate about that, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to switch the subject to something else because they don't want to have to defend the indefensible. These two regulations that these two CRA bills would reverse would take away protections for American workers. This debate is not closed. I completely disagree with that assertion. We had a full debate on this yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee. We devoted an hour of debate to it right now. Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to chew up most of their time, instead of talking about this rule and the underlying legislation, talking about something else; but that is their right if that is what they want to do. If they had some serious debate that they wanted to have on this rule and the underlying legislation, we wouldn't be talking about Russia. We would be talking about these bills. We would be talking about these regulations. If this rule is adopted, we will have at least 2 hours of debate here on the floor on the bills themselves, and perhaps more if there is a motion to recommit. There is plenty of debate here. There is plenty of time to decide that you are for the American workers and protecting their consumer protection rights under ERISA or you are against American workers--either/or. It doesn't have anything to do with Russia. It has nothing to do with the Presidential election. It has everything to do with whether you stand with the workers of America or not. I stand with the workers of America. I think the vast majority of the people in this body want to stand with the workers of America. If they do, I hope that they will vote for this rule and vote for the underlying legislation so that we can reverse these two regulations. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H.R. 116 and the underlying joint resolutions.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about regular order. This particular regulation from the Bureau of Land Management was enacted very quickly and hurriedly without input from State and county governments. So, essentially, this was a hurried-through rule that didn't have the regular order input that it should have had, yet another reason why it should be reversed through this Congressional Review Act. But it is also the case that this doesn't mean the BLM doesn't have any authority here. They can go back to their old regulation, which was already in place, and they can come up with a new rule so long as it is not a substantially similar rule, or they can come to us and seek specific authorization. The truth of the matter is this particular regulation has had so many problems, it cannot be tweaked or amended. They need to start all over again and take input from State and local government. Now, I heard the gentleman talk about people who hunt and fish. I am a lifelong hunter and fisherman. In fact, I believe the gentleman has invited me to come to Colorado to go fishing with him, and I have invited him to come to the Gulf to come fishing with me. I spend a lot of my time with people who hunt and fish all over the country, and I have never heard anybody in the hunting and fishing community say: I really want the Federal Government to tell me when and how and where I can hunt and fish. Quite the opposite. My friends who hunt and fish want the Federal Government to stay out of it. They would rather let local and State people make those sorts of decisions, particularly as they pertain to land use management. On the education issues, as I said before, I was an 8-year member of the Alabama State Board of Education. My colleague from Colorado said something that is so true: getting a high-quality, well-trained, caring teacher in the classroom is the most important thing we can do for our schoolchildren. I don't trust the Federal Government to do that better than I trust State and local officials to do it. We had this law, No Child Left Behind, that gave the Federal Government the power to determine when a teacher was highly qualified or not. I don't think anybody in Washington knows better how to assess whether a teacher is highly qualified or not than the principal and superintendent that that teacher works for, than the local school board that that teacher works for. There is nobody up here who can know that better than they can. There is nobody up here who can do a better job of looking at the teacher preparation programs and saying they are good or bad than State school boards, most of whom, like me, were elected by the people, accountable to the people, instead of somebody up here who sits in some office and makes that decision for them. Do we really think that is what the American people want? The American people want control of their lives back. They are tired of Washington bureaucrats telling them what to do, and they are really tired of the Federal Government telling the people they entrust with the education of their children what to do and what not to do. They want the people who make those decisions to be the people who live in their communities, that they see in church, that they see at the grocery store, that they interact with at the school every day. That is what they want. And they want us, the Federal Government, to get out of the way. I talked to dozens and dozens of people who are school board members and teachers and people involved in the school administration who said this regulation by the Department of Education Accountability is way over the line, please don't let them go through with that. So we are being responsive to those people in doing this, and I am proud that we are. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 91 and the underlying joint resolutions.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 91 provides for consideration of three separate joint resolutions intended to address government overreach by using the Congressional Review Act process. The first measure deals with the Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0 rule. This rule represents a remarkable overreach that encroaches on State and local authority. By law, BLM is required to coordinate with local governments, but this rule would disrupt that longstanding principle. Under the Planning 2.0 rule, faceless bureaucrats in Washington would be tasked with micromanaging much of our Nation's land and resources. The rule also disregards the Department of the Interior's multiple-use mission. If left intact, the rule will harm grazing, timber, energy, mineral development, and recreation on our public lands. This is government overreach at its worst. The Federal Government should not be telling communities and States what works best for them. Decisions should be made on the local level, with site-specific considerations, not landscape-level analyses as called for in this rule. For 4 years, I had the privilege of serving on the Planning Commission for the city of Mobile. Land use planning is and has historically been, in the United States, a local function. Imagine a Washington bureaucrat trying to tell planning commissions in municipalities or counties anywhere in the United States how they are going to manage land down to the landscaping level. That is not the role of the Federal Government. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created this government. Yet this regulation would take us somewhere we have never been before. Making matters worse, this regulation was pushed through in the waning days of the Obama administration, making it one the many midnight regulations jammed through at the last minute. This Congressional Review Act measure is supported by over 60 organizations, ranging from the American Farm Bureau Federation to the National Association of Counties, to the National Mining Association. There is broad support for revisiting this misguided rule. This rule also provides for consideration of Congressional Review Act measures for two rules from the Department of Education. Now, typically, in America, we think of education as a local and State endeavor. The Federal Government provides 15 percent, on average, of the funding for local school systems. Yet, we know that the Federal Government comprises over 50 percent of the requirements for red tape and paperwork. That imbalance harms our ability to deliver education at the local level where it matters the most. As a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, I have been a consistent advocate for ensuring control over education is largely left in the hands of local school boards, teachers, parents, and administrators who know their students best. I was very pleased to see Congress pass the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, which replaced No Child Left Behind and fundamentally changed our Nation's K-12 education policies. Even better, this was a bipartisan effort that brought Members from both sides of the aisle together; and, yes, it was signed by President Obama. The Wall Street Journal called the Every Student Succeeds Act ``the largest devolution of Federal control to the states in a quarter- century.'' A major goal of our reform bill was to empower States to create their own accountability systems. This is something else that has been consistent throughout American history. We have looked to the States to put in these accountability systems. I served on the Alabama State Board of Education. This is much of what we did. While there are broad-guiding principles outlined in the law, the intent of Congress was for there to be very little Federal involvement in the accountability process. Despite clear efforts in the Every Student Succeeds Act to limit the influence of the Federal Secretary of Education, the rule proposed by the Department of Education dealing with accountability gave far too much control to the Secretary, which ultimately harms our students. Most concerning, the rule will restrict the flexibility that was at the core of the philosophy behind the Every Student Succeeds Act. We heard from local administrators, local school board members, State superintendents of education, State school board members from all over the country, from all types of States and all types of communities. They wanted to have more flexibility. They wanted to have their own control over their accountability programs. When the rule was first proposed, leaders in the House and Senate sent a very clear and thorough explanation of their concerns to the Department of Education. In fact, I even expressed my concerns about the proposed rule's contradiction of the statute directly to the then-Secretary of Education. Unfortunately, most of the concerns of Congress went unaddressed. The final rule gives far too much authority to the Federal Department of Education and stands in direct contrast to law passed by Congress. As States work on their accountability plans, it is important that they have certainty that the Federal Government will not continue to exert undue power and influence over the process. Through this Congressional Review Act challenge, we can ensure control is at the State and local level and prevent unnecessary Federal overreach into our classrooms. Finally, this rule provides for a Congressional Review Act resolution overturning the Obama administration's teacher preparation regulation. This is yet another rule that would exert far too much Federal authority over an area that has been traditionally reserved for the States. Teacher preparation is critically important to the success of our Nation's education system, but it is a process that has been successfully controlled and implemented at the State level with some grant assistance from the Federal Government. What might work to prepare a teacher in one State is totally different from what might work in another State. This rule makes no acknowledgment of that fact. This regulation sets up a one-size-fits- all Federal system, which is not what Congress intended. As a former member of the Alabama State Board of Education, I can attest that we have highly qualified people who worked very hard every day to make sure we have skilled teachers in our schools who are adequately prepared. These school board members do not need the Federal Government to intervene and place additional burdens and requirements on them. The challenges are serious enough as it is. Sadly, this regulation is just another attempt to allow bureaucrats in Washington to micromanage our States and local school districts. Groups like the American Council on Education and The School Superintendents Association expressed their concerns with the Federal overreach created by this rule. This resolution would block this unnecessary Federal involvement and keep control in the hands of the States, where it belongs. Each of the three bills covered by this rule focus on taking power away from bureaucrats in Washington and, instead, empowering States and local communities. Heavy-handed policies from Washington have failed time and time again. It is critical that we use our power to overturn these overreaching regulations. It is clearly what the American people elected to us do. Many on the other side of the aisle claim that, while they disagree with portions of these rules, Congress should not use the CRA process because it blocks the agencies from reissuing a rule in ``substantially the same form.'' However, this argument ignores the fact that the statute clearly states an agency may enact a similar rule if it is subsequently authorized by law. Thus, the CRA gives Congress the ability to rein in an out-of-control agency until we, the legislative branch, can give it further instruction. Members on both sides of the aisle should welcome the chance to use this tool to make sure our legislative intent is actually followed by those implementing the law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 91 and the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 91 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond just briefly to a couple of points that my colleague from Colorado made, and I want to compliment him and his service on our committee. He is a tremendous member, and we appreciate his leadership. We had a little bit of a constitutional law lesson there. The truth of the matter is, the Department of Education only exists because of an act of Congress. The only powers it has are the powers that we give them through the authorizing legislation. What we authorize, we can unauthorize. The Every Student Succeeds Act took back a number of things we had authorized under No Child Left Behind. This is no violation of the separation of powers under the Congressional Review Act when we look at a rule-making authority that we have given to a Federal agency and see that they have done it in a way that is contrary to congressional intent and we take it back. We have the authority to do that, and we should take it back when we see overreach like this. He also brought up how this might tie the hands of our new Secretary of Education, and I will take this point in time to congratulate her on her confirmation. What this will require her to do is to work with the Congress to make sure that we are on the same page. I remember very clearly when the former Secretary of Education came before our committee. I, and many others, pleaded with him not to put out this rule because we told him this is not in keeping with the intent of Congress and with the words of Congress in the statute. He went forward anyway. I believe Secretary DeVos is going to work with Congress to make sure, as the Department of Education, under her management begins to implement this law, it is done so in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the law. I hope that that is what we will do between the legislative branch and the executive branch and every department of government, but, in the last 8 years, we didn't see very much of that. We basically had the executive branch of government force feeding things to us. I think it is high time that we take action, whatever party we are in, to exercise our Article I powers to make sure we maintain control over the things we created through our authorizing statutes. So I don't foresee the problems with the incoming Secretary of Education that my good friend from Colorado does. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passionate remarks of the gentleman from New York. The Holocaust is something that all of us should learn more about and take seriously. There are people today who would seek to destroy the Nation of Israel. The leadership of Iran has said that over and over again, yet the previous administration reached an egregious deal with them that puts the Nation of Israel at risk. So I take no back seat to anybody in standing up for the Jewish people, as I and many other people in this body have done, but we are here today to talk about two education bills and a third bill dealing with the Bureau of Land Management. I would like to redirect our debate to those subjects. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Captain William ``Bill'' Pfister on his retirement and honor him for his over fifty years of service to our country as a member of the U.S. Navy and a key leader in our nation's shipbuilding industry. Bill Pfister graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1962, and he went on to serve in the Navy for 27 years. Among his many honors, he is a recipient of the U.S. Navy Legion of Merit Award and several Meritorious Service Medals. He retired from the Navy in 1989 and continued to support the Navy through his work on various shipbuilding projects. He was ``employee negative one'' for Austal USA and helped select the Mobile, Alabama site. During his years at Austal, he has overseen the impressive construction and expansion of a first-class shipbuilding operation. To put it simply: Bill took a green field and built it into the Austal of today. Austal USA is now the largest private sector employer in Alabama's First Congressional District, employing over 4,000 people. Much of the success and growth at Austal is because of Bill Pfister's hard work, vision, dedication, and leadership. Bill has also taken an active role in our local community through involvement in civic clubs and organizations including the Partners for Environmental Progress, the local Navy League chapter, Mobile Baykeeper, Propeller Club, and the Military Officers Association of America. Like a true sailor, Bill also enjoys spending time boating on Mobile Bay. Mr. Speaker, Bill Pfister has poured his heart and soul into the success of Austal USA and the overall mission of the United States Navy. So, on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I wish Bill and his wife, Sally, all the best upon his retirement. Our nation will be forever grateful for his service and sacrifice.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairwoman for yielding, and for her leadership on our committee. I rise today to offer my strong support for H.J. Res. 37. This legislation is about protecting our Nation's workers, small businesses, and taxpayers. As a former labor and employment attorney, I have seen the maze that businesses must jump through in order to become a Federal contractor. Well, this rule would only make things that much harder for them. This regulation, due to the price of compliance, could force small- and medium-sized businesses, who can't afford to hire a massive legal team, out of being able to get contracts with the Federal Government. This rule will add subjectivity to the Federal procurement process and deprive contractors of due process rights. As an attorney, I take that threat very seriously. We should be in the business of supporting policies to make it easier for these kinds of businesses to get new work, not harder. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on the other side say this is just about punishing bad actors. But this rule would require Federal contractors to disclose even alleged violations of wrongdoing, regardless of whether or not there is any credibility to the claims. Right now, there are effective policies in place to prevent bad actors and contractors that break the law from receiving government contracts. This could be especially damaging for employers who are the target of union organizing campaigns, or in a situation where a competitor files a claim in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. It elevates the risk of frivolous complaints and the loss of business. Instead of muddying the water and making it harder for our Nation's small- and medium-sized businesses, let's use the current framework, not a new burdensome regulation, to enforce the law and hold any bad actors accountable. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution to block an overreaching and counterproductive rule.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my deepest appreciation for my Director of Operations, Errical Bryant, for her years of service to Alabama's First Congressional District. Today marks Errical's final day serving the people of Southwest Alabama. Like so many on Capitol Hill, Errical started out as an intern for Congressman Sonny Callahan in 2000. After working for a period of time as a door attendant in the U.S. Senate, Errical returned to serving the First District as Constituent Services Director for Congressman Jo Bonner. She later added the responsibilities of Administrative Director and Scheduler. Errical served in this position for over ten years, until Congressman Bonner retired from Congress in 2013. Mr. Speaker, I asked former Congressman Jo Bonner to share his appreciation for Errical. Congressman Bonner said, ``Simply put, Errical is a wonderful human being--one of the finest people I know-- and her many characteristics of honesty, hard work, dedication, and patriotic duty are the very qualities that will well serve America's next Attorney General. There are very few people in Alabama who have interacted with our office over the past 14 years who have not had the pleasure of working with Errical Bryant. In many ways, she has become the face of Alabama's First Congressional District in Washington and she has always made visitors feel extra special and at home, forever representing Congressman Byrne and me in the most professional manner humanly possible. While Errical's strengths are considerable, her talents are unlimited and her love of country is second to none.'' When I was elected to Congress, one of the first pieces of advice I received from Congressman Bonner was to hire Errical. I distinctively remember my wife, Rebecca, and I meeting with her to discuss the position. During our meeting, Errical said ``If you do everything I tell you to do, then you will be a really good Congressman.'' Having worked with Errical over the last three years, I can say there was a lot of truth to that statement. As my Director of Operations, Errical handles everything from scheduling meetings to managing office finances to planning special events. She is a master of the little things and keeps the office running smoothly and effectively. Despite all the stress and pressure of a Congressional office, Errical keeps the train on the tracks and the schedule moving. She has also helped countless people from Southwest Alabama arrange successful visits to our nation's capital. Upon their arrival to Washington, she has been a welcoming face ensuring southern hospitality remains ever present in our office. In addition to planning everyday visits, she has overseen ticket distribution for multiple presidential inaugurations and major gatherings. Errical has arranged important visits to Southwest Alabama for other Members of Congress, cabinet officials, and foreign ambassadors. These visits were planned and executed perfectly, which helped leave a positive impression of our part of the country on both national and world leaders. As our internship program coordinator, Errical has also helped mold and shape the next generation of leaders. She has instilled professionalism and confidence in countless young professionals that will serve them well in whatever career path they take. In addition to all of her official duties and responsibilities, Errical has served as the office's unofficial party planner and executive chef. Displaying the same southern hospitality she shows to our constituents, Errical has organized countless celebrations for co- workers, usually bringing in a classic ``Pouncey Family'' homemade cake or pie. I asked some of her current and former colleagues for one word that describes Errical, and I think these hit home: dedicated, steady, diligent, passionate, ethical, motivated, funny, sunny, meticulous, loyal, accommodating, conscientious, and tenacious. Mr. Speaker, Errical has been ``the face'' of Alabama's First Congressional District for much of the last fifteen years, and her service will be missed. As she moves on to begin a new role, I want to wish her and her husband, Thurston, all the best. So, on behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to thank Errical for her years of hard work, commitment, and service to Southwest Alabama.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of a community leader, public servant, proud veteran, personal mentor, and great American, Lewis Odom. Lewis Odom lived a life many strive to emulate, a life filled with purpose, integrity, and selfless commitment to those around him. He had such a genuine impact on my life and the lives of so many others. From a young age, Lewis held himself to a standard of excellence. Upon graduation from high school, Lewis enlisted in the U.S. Navy Reserve and was selected to join the prestigious V-12 Naval College Training Program during World War II and thereafter. Through this program, he attended Millsaps College and Tulane University and went on to serve in the Navy aboard the USS Mississippi. After serving, Lewis continued his education at the University of Alabama where he received a law degree, and, soon after, commissioned as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force in 1951, serving as a legal officer in Korea. Lewis Odom's career of service was only just beginning when he left the military. His hard work and integrity as a lawyer were recognized as he became the general counsel of the U.S. Senate Small Business Committee. He would go on to serve as administrative assistant to Alabama Senator John Sparkman before being named staff director and counsel for the Senate Banking Committee. He played a critical role in shaping many of our Nation's financial regulations during this important time period. Probably one of his most memorable accomplishments during his career on Capitol Hill was to plan and organize the inauguration ceremony for President John F. Kennedy. He often spoke of the great challenge and honor of that job. Following his time on Capitol Hill, he served as deputy to the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. He was eventually appointed senior Deputy Comptroller of the Currency before retiring from Federal service in 1981. After his years of service in the Federal Government, Lewis returned to practice law in Mobile, joining the law firm of Miller, Hamilton, Snider & Odom. That was when I met Lewis. As a newly minted lawyer, Lewis took me under his wing and served as an important mentor. Lewis was a thorough and exact lawyer who paid attention to detail and helped instill those traits in me and many others that he worked with. He inspired in me the confidence to hold myself to a standard of excellence, but he did so without being overbearing or harsh. He took a new lawyer and allowed me to gain invaluable experience. As a young lawyer, Lewis taught me an important lesson that every young lawyer must learn: to choose your battles wisely. This lesson applied to more than just the field of law, however, and I have continued to use this principle in many of the other skills that I learned from Lewis throughout my life and career. Lewis was also a true community leader committed to making Alabama a better place. From his first days in Mobile to his last, Lewis was ever present in the community, serving in any way he could, always giving his time and his devotion. During his years in Mobile, Lewis served as the chairman of the Alabama Ethics Commission, the chairman of the Mobile water board, chancellor of the Episcopal Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast, and chairman of the Mobile Museum Board. He was also a strong supporter of the University of Alabama, serving as president to various alumni chapters and as a founding member of the Farrah Law Society for the University of Alabama School of Law. It is true that Lewis worked just as hard for his community in his retirement as he had earlier in his legal career. Sadly, Lewis Odom passed away on January 16 of this year at the age of 91. My wife, Rebecca, and I were both heartbroken to learn of his passing because he was such a dear friend. During this time of sadness, we take great comfort in remembering the impact he had on each of us as well as on our community, State, and country. I hope his wife, Janelle; son, Mike; daughter, Patty; beloved grandchildren and great-grandchildren can take comfort in the same. Mr. Speaker, Lewis was a man of great integrity and set an example for all those around him to hold ourselves to such a level of excellence and service. He was a great man, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, there are few people who leave such a profound impact on the lives of so many as former Alabama Governor Albert Brewer did. Albert Brewer was more than just a Governor. He was a dedicated public servant committed to the betterment of our state and our people. His unfailing commitment to the state of Alabama was apparent in his early years. After attending The University of Alabama, Gov. Brewer served three terms in the Alabama House of Representatives, and during the last of these terms, was elected by his colleagues as the youngest person in Alabama's history to serve as the Speaker. After his time as Speaker, Brewer would go on to serve as Lieutenant Governor before being elevated to the position of Governor after the death of Lurleen Wallace in 1968. When he ran for a full term in 1970, he exhibited his compassion for the people of Alabama and his bravery in fundamentally changing how gubernatorial candidates organized their respective campaigns by including African Americans. In his platform, Brewer fought for education funding, an ethics commission, and a commission to revise Alabama's 1901 state constitution. Governor Brewer sought to help those who were disenfranchised and in poverty throughout Alabama and to include newly registered African American voters. His dedication to the disenfranchised speaks volumes for his character and his commitment to selfless public service. Albert Brewer raised the bar for public service in Alabama. After leaving office, Governor Brewer followed his passion for education and became a distinguished professor at Cumberland School of Law, where he taught courses on ethics and constitutional law. His expertise, impact on students, and passion were recognized by Cumberland School of Law with the dedication of the Martha F. and Albert P. Brewer Plaza on April 4, 2008. Sadly, Governor Brewer passed away on January 2, 2017 at the age of 88. His integrity and dedication to public service have made a positive mark that cannot be undone. His legacy will be one of compassion, selfless public service, and an unfailing dedication to his family and the people of Alabama. I consider it an honor to have known Albert Brewer and worked with him over the years. On behalf of Alabama's First Congressional District, I want to share my deepest condolences with his family, friends, and loved ones. Mr. Speaker, Albert Brewer was one of the best governors in our state's history, and there is no doubt Alabama is a better state because of his service and sacrifice.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation in order to ensure General James Mattis can become the next United States Secretary of Defense. It is critically important to our military men and women as well as to the safety and security of the American people that the Trump administration has a capable, competent Secretary of Defense in place on January 20. Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen need to know who their leader is, and we should do everything we can to minimize any gap in leadership. General Mattis is uniquely qualified for this vital role, and his nomination has earned praise from both Democrats and Republicans, as shown by the vote yesterday in the United States Senate. During his over 40 years of service to our country, he has consistently shown both a great appreciation for the true toils of conflict and the clear ability to defeat an enemy. That is an important balance for anyone leading our military. Now, I know some of my colleagues on the other side have concerns about the process, but let's not get caught up in a process fight when it comes to the safety and security of the American people. The fundamental question should be: Do you or do you not support General Mattis serving as our Secretary of Defense? Now, when I found out General Mattis would not be appearing before our committee, of course I was disappointed, but I pulled out my copy of ``Meditations'' by the great Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, which is his favorite book. He carries it with him everywhere. If you read those meditations, you know where they were written. They were written on the northern frontier of the Roman Empire where the Emperor General Marcus Aurelius spent several years to be with his legionnaires as they fought against the enemy across the line of the Rhine. In those meditations he talks about the importance of humility. Any general who reads the ``Meditations'' of Marcus Aurelius consistently so that he can remember that his duty is to his soldiers and to a humility before the power that he has is someone who should be leading the Department of Defense of the United States. I have great confidence that he knows that the strength of our military lies in the men and women who fight for us. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to help pave the way for General Mattis to lead our military and protect the safety and the security of the American people.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, last Friday the House and the Senate met to fulfill our solemn constitutional responsibility to count the votes of electors for President and Vice President. This year the joint session was confronted with a record number of so-called faithless electors-- electors who were supposed to vote for the Presidential candidates named on their States' ballot, but, instead, voted for someone else. Different States handle their faithless electors in different ways. In my view, the joint session rightly fulfilled its constitutional responsibility by simply taking the certified results of each State without intervention. This was in line with precedent set in 1969 and with the text of the Constitution. Because I believe this decision to be correct, I did not file an objection during the counting process. However, I wish for the Record to contain my views on this matter and to express my concern that an avoidable constitutional crisis on this subject is a very real possibility in the future. The faithless elector problem has often been seen as academic, but in 2000, Vice President Gore was three faithless electors away from the Presidency. As a point of reference, there were 10 faithless electors in this election. Thus, this is not a matter that should be taken lightly. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives the States the exclusive power to appoint electors in a manner decided by their State legislatures. Clause 4 provides the sole grant of authority to Congress in the process to determine the time for choosing electors and the day they cast their vote. The process to count electors is outlined in Clause 3 and identical language which superseded it in the 12th Amendment. It provides that, ``The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. . . .'' Under the 12th Amendment, the persons receiving a majority of the vote ``shall be'' the President and Vice President. The extent of what Congress' powers are in the counting process has been the subject of over 200 years of debate. The Congressional Record from 1800 includes a lengthy speech by Senator Charles Pinckney, a Framer of the Constitution, who stated that as the Framers wished the President to be independent, ``It never was intended . . . to have given to Congress . . . the right to object to any electoral vote.'' The first successful effort to expand Congress' power in counting did not come until 1865, when Congress adopted a joint House-Senate rule on the subject. Under the rule, no electoral vote that incurred an objection could be counted unless both Houses agreed. The joint rule was tempered by the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which still governs the counting process to this day. The law allows an objection signed by a House and a Senate Member. However, under the Electoral Count Act, unless there is a case of double returns, no electoral vote regularly given and lawfully certified shall be rejected. In 1969, Dr. Lloyd Bailey, a Republican elector from North Carolina, was faithless, and the Governor of North Carolina certified the State's electoral certificate with knowledge of his vote. The House and the Senate thoroughly debated whether Dr. Bailey's vote should be counted, but ultimately voted to reject the challenge. Opponents of the challenge, in my view, properly argued that Congress lacked the power to exclude Dr. Bailey's vote under the Electoral Count Act and, more importantly, Congress had no power to exclude his vote under the Constitution. To do so would be a violation of the rights of the sovereign States. Some have argued that the Bailey precedent is not applicable when an elector violates his or her State's law in casting a faithless vote. I find this argument constitutionally suspect. Unless no candidate reaches a majority, Congress' role in the counting process appears to be ministerial: to count votes and announce a result. For that reason, the issue of faithless electors is rightly resolved at the State level, before the results reach Congress. At the present time, however, a hodgepodge of State laws exist to deal with faithless electors, some of which are ill-equipped to handle the problem. Fortunately, the Uniform Law Commission has proposed the Faithful Presidential Electors Act, which has already been enacted in four States. The Faithful Presidential Electors Act provides a State- administered pledge of faithfulness, with any attempt by an elector to submit a vote in violation of that pledge constituting a resignation from the office of elector. In such case, the act provides a mechanism for filling an electoral vacancy. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will include in the Record a copy of the Faithful Presidential Electors Act. In short, Mr. Speaker, based upon my view of the Constitution, Congress properly handled the issue of faithless electors in this election. This election should, however, serve as a wake-up call to States that further action on their part may be necessary. Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act (Drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and by it Approved and Recommended for Enactment in All the States at its Annual Conference Meeting in Its One-Hundred-and-Nineteenth Year in Chicago, Illinois July 9-16, 2010 Without Prefatory Note or Comments) [Copyright 2010 by National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, September 28, 2010]

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my strong support for this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater friend to the United States than Israel. Israel is a beacon of hope in a very dangerous part of the world. They are an important economic and military partner of the United States, and they play a critical role when it comes to fighting radical Islamic terrorism. Given the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship, I was deeply disappointed to see the United States recently passed a flawed anti- Israel resolution that will only make it more difficult to achieve peace in the Middle East. Even more disappointing was the fact that the United States just stood by and did nothing as it happened. Instead of vetoing the resolution, the United States Ambassador abstained from voting at all. In other words, the United States turned its back and looked the other way as the U.N. passed a flawed resolution attacking Israel. This represents a dangerous break in a longstanding and bipartisan policy to protect our sole democratic ally in the region from one-sided resolutions at the U.N. Let's be clear, this resolution does absolutely nothing to make peace more likely in the region. Instead, it muddies the water and only further complicates what is already a very complex issue. No solution to the ongoing problems with Israel and the Palestinian Authority is going to come from an international body like the United Nations telling them what to do. Any real solution must come through negotiations between the involved parties. Honestly, given the many blunders of the Obama administration on the world stage, I guess this most recent action shouldn't be all that surprising. But this action is one of the most irresponsible acts ever by an outgoing President. It will be a dark stain on an already disastrous legacy. By abstaining and allowing this resolution to pass, the Obama administration has upset decades of bipartisan policy as it relates to Israel and put a pathway to peace even further out of reach. Now is the time to be standing up for Israel, not turning away from them. It is my hope and my belief that under President-elect Trump the United States will once again stand arm in arm with Israel, and this resolution is an important step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 944 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 944 provides for consideration of H.R. 5143, the Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016. The resolution provides for a structured rule. This legislation is an important effort to protect the U.S. model of insurance supervision, provide for improved oversight, and keep the U.S. insurance industry strong and competitive. For over 150 years, individual States have successfully regulated insurance and coordinated their activities. This model has worked and ensured that the focus remains on the consumer. Well, when Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act back in 2010, the Federal Government assumed a new role in the regulation of the insurance industry. This change included the creation of the Federal Insurance Office, otherwise known as FIO, and charged FIO with representing the interests of U.S. insurers--not consumers, insurers-- during the negotiation of any international agreements. The change also allowed for both the FIO Director and the Federal Reserve to participate in an international organization known as the International Association of Insurance Supervisors. Previously, insurance regulators from the individual States participated in the international discussions. Remember, the State insurance regulators are there to protect consumers. The International Association of Insurance Supervisors is responsible for developing regulatory guidelines and best practices for insurance supervisors around the world to adopt. Europe and the United States have very different regulatory models for insurance. Recently, the European Union has developed a regulatory protocol known as Solvency II. Solvency II is significantly different from the successful State-based insurance regulatory system that has been successful in the U.S. for the last 150 years. The fear is that the International Association of Insurance Supervisors will adopt Solvency II as the gold standard, which would put U.S. insurers and consumers at a severe disadvantage. More alarming, the Treasury Department and the U.S. Trade Representative are already engaged in negotiations with the European Union regarding a ``covered agreement'' over insurance regulations. If based on the Solvency II model, this could severely hurt the U.S. insurance industry and consumers. That is where our legislation comes in. The Transparent Insurance Standards Act simply enhances Congress' oversight of international deliberations relating to insurance standards. The bill sets reasonable requirements that must be met before the United States can agree to accept, establish, or enter into the adoption of any international insurance standard. The same requirements would be followed throughout any negotiations over a covered agreement with the European Union. To be clear, this bill would not stop the international process. It simply will ensure that the United States is leading on the issues instead of being led by foreign governments. This bill also requires that the Federal Insurance Office and the Federal Reserve report and testify before Congress at least twice a year about ongoing negotiations. I appreciate Mr. Luetkemeyer and Chairman Hensarling for their leadership on this very important issue, and I hope we can come together to pass this very important legislation. I just don't understand why anyone would be opposed to greater congressional oversight over such an important issue. Adoption of these standards or entering into an agreement with the European Union could fundamentally alter the U.S. insurance industry and, yes, hurt consumers. It only makes sense for the democratically elected Congress to play a role in the process. This legislation is simply about improving oversight and protecting the State-based model of insurance regulation that has held up so well in our country over the last 150 years and has enjoyed wide, bipartisan support. Most importantly, this bill is about ensuring the concerns of the American people come first, not the worries of some foreign government or group. I urge my colleagues to protect insurance consumers across America by supporting House Resolution 944 and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have listened to my colleague from Florida's remarks, and I certainly understand the concern that we all have with the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008. But there are many of us who believe that the Dodd-Frank law, which contains the provision that we are trying to affect here, really did things that went way outside of what we should have been doing to try to prevent another recession from happening again. How does ceding control over the U.S. insurance market to foreign governments and groups help our economy or help prevent a future recession? How does a bill like the underlying bill, that protects consumers and provides congressional oversight, hurt our economy? How does that not help our economy, help the consumers? This bill is necessary because the United States faces losing control over our insurance that is so very important to everybody in the United States of America. My colleague talked about State insurance departments. One thing we have seen these last several years is a steady effort to take power away from State governments, which is, frankly, contrary to the intent of our Constitution. Our State governments do very important things, like they are the primary providers for public education. But they are also the primary regulators for insurance, and they have done a good job of that. We have 150 years of experience with that. We have bipartisan support for that. Why would we be taking power away from them? Why isn't continuing to allow them to have that power and utilize it as each State sees fit, why isn't that a good thing? Finally, my colleague talked about how, at the end of this Congress, we are doing bumper sticker things. Well, I believe that passing, with a huge bipartisan vote, the National Defense Authorization Act last week was a good thing. If that is a bumper sticker, I want that bumper sticker. We passed, last week, the 21st Century Cures Act that I really believe is going to save lives. If that is a bumper sticker, I want that bumper sticker. And I predict on the floor tomorrow we are going to take a WRDA bill for everybody in the United States that is going to enhance the well- being of people all over this country. That is another bumper sticker I will be happy to have on my car. So I appreciate my colleague's remarks. He knows the tremendous respect that I have for him, but I respectfully disagree with the premise for his arguments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill, the underlying bill, has nothing to do with Wall Street and everything to do with consumers, so I respectfully disagree with my colleague from New Jersey. I know that it would be good for them to try to characterize this bill as something having to do with Wall Street, but it really has to do with you and me and the average people in this country. I listened to his remarks about his proposal regarding doing things to try to keep American companies from going abroad and doing everything we can to attract other companies abroad, whether they are U.S. based or not, to come back here. That sounds a whole lot like what President-elect Trump is saying, and I think it is pretty clear that that is going to be a big priority for him when we come back in January. Now, we had been talking about tax reform here in this House, and there is a proposal moving forward that is comprehensive that will not only provide the appropriate incentives for American companies to stay here, but also provide incentives for companies that are in other countries to come here and provide jobs for the American people, which is really what this is all about. Our tax reform proposal would actually lower tax rates for everybody in America, and we should be about that as well. Instead, our friends on the other side of the aisle, every time we talk about tax reform, they want to stick some tax increases in there. The American people don't want a tax increase. They are tired of tax increases. They are tired of the overextension of the Federal Government, and they are tired of ceding control over things in America to international governments and groups. What the underlying bill does is it keeps control over our domestic insurance market here in America and doesn't give that control, doesn't give any of that authority to people in other countries. I listened with interest to the remarks that were just made. I am looking forward to President-elect Trump being President Trump so that we can have a comprehensive approach to keeping American businesses here and attracting more businesses here for more jobs. I believe that is exactly what we are going to see during this very exciting year to come. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I want to go back to some remarks I made at the very beginning. No one wants to see a repeat of the Great Recession. It harmed everybody in this country. But in response to it, by passing the Dodd-Frank law, which this provision is going to try to affect, we essentially took a liberal grab bag of ideas that have been hanging around for years and just threw it into a bill and then tried to pretend that somehow that was going to have something to do with preventing a future recession. Virtually everything that is in the Dodd-Frank law has nothing to do with preventing a future recession, and the particular provision that we are talking about with the underlying bill has nothing to do with preventing a future recession. What it does do is take the bill we have right now--not the underlying bill but the law we have right now--and take authority away from the American people. We have sat back the last several years and watched this administration go through negotiation and agreement after agreement that were bad for the American people. My colleague and I have agreed over and over again that the Iran deal was a bad deal for the American people. So why would we continue to cede control to foreign governments and groups? I think the election that we just had was, in part, about taking control of our country back--taking it back from Federal overreach and taking it back from ceding authority to people in other countries. This bill, the underlying bill that this rule deals with, gets that authority back for the American people and gets the control back to the States, where it has been successful for 150 years. That is what is good for the American people, and that is why we have chosen to bring this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I, again, urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 944 and the underlying bill.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.