Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referred to what this would do to the budget. I would point out to the gentleman, and I think I did this in committee yesterday, that if this is passed, it will only be 16.8 percent of total Federal outlays, which means the single most important thing that we do here in government only gets less than 20 percent of the money that we are going to spend. So I don't think it is asking too much of ourselves, as the people responsible for providing for the defense of America, that we spend 16.8 percent of all the Federal money we are going to spend next year on making the American people safe and secure. He spoke about tradeoffs. Let me tell you one tradeoff I don't think any of us should be willing to make, and that is trading off the safety and security of the American people for trying to keep some other overspending in some other part of the budget going. We need to focus today, and in this bill, on what it takes to authorize the defense and the safety and security of the American people, and I believe this bill does that, as did all but one of my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee. So I believe that we have struck the appropriate balance here that does all that. Yes, we have got some budget things we need to take care of. That is for later. For today, we are going to focus on defending the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my colleague on the Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Arizona. This was not done in the middle of the night in secrecy. This was done in full committee with cameras watching us, and done early in the evening with full debate, so I disagree with him about that. Let's talk about the wall for a second. I support President Trump and what he is trying to do with the wall. I hope we get to a point where we can deal with that. This is a defense authorization bill. This is not a wall authorization bill. The wall is already authorized. We don't need an authorization bill for the wall. It is already there. The next step for us to take for the wall is an appropriations bill, and this is not an appropriations bill. So what the Rules Committee has done is made it clear that we are not going to deal with the wall one way or the other in the National Defense Authorization Act. That is not the proper place for it. That is not the proper place to be spending money for it. There is another part of our budget, another law for us to deal with there. So I hope that we all will understand that what we have done is made it clear there is nothing in this bill--nothing--about a wall, nor should there be anything in this bill about a wall, because that is for another committee, another bill, another time, and another place. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), our newest member of the Armed Services Committee and the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and concerns about protecting all of our privacy on the internet. I think we all should be about that. But instead of having a misguided and unauthorized regulatory action that left vast gaps in this system, we should have a comprehensive bill to deal with it. That bill is not before the House today. What is before the House today in this rule are two bills: one that deals with the drought in the West, which is very important; and the second is provide for the safety and security of the American people. So that is what we are here today about. I appreciate her concerns about that. I join with her, and I hope that we have a bill on this floor that comprehensively deals with the issues that she brought up, but now is not the time, these are not the bills, and this is not the rule to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly agree with my colleague from Vermont's remarks regarding the Budget Control Act. It was passed for a good intention, but it has worked out quite differently from what people thought it was going to accomplish. It is time for us to take responsibility, as the gentleman from Vermont said, and to do what we are supposed to do to make the priority decisions about what is important for America and what is not. Providing for the safety and security of the people of America, that is important. And if we have to make cuts in other parts of our budget to make sure we are doing that, first and foremost, I am happy to do it. The gentleman is absolutely right about micromanagement. We have been micromanaging the people that we charge with defending America with how they are going to carry out combat responsibilities, particularly in the Middle East. President Trump, I think, quite rightly, has delegated many of those decisions down to Secretary Mattis so that our combatant commanders can make the decisions they have got to make as and when they need to make them. I understand what he is saying about the State Department budget, something that we all should be concerned about. The appropriate time to talk about that is when the appropriations bill for the State Department is here, not when we are talking about the National Defense Authorization Act. Finally, with regard to Afghanistan, which if I may make a little bit broader and talk about the Middle East in general, it is time for a new AUMF. The AUMFs that were passed in this Congress over 15 years ago were for a different time, with different circumstances altogether. And I do sense a bipartisan urging for us to do that, but this is not the right time for us to do it on this particular piece of legislation. I hope that at a future time the Foreign Affairs Committee, that has appropriate jurisdiction over that issue, will come forward with an AUMF that we can all discuss because we are now not just in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are in Syria, we are in Yemen, we are in Libya, we are in Somalia, where we have had some past history that is not so good. We all--everybody, not just from the Armed Services Committee--need to understand these threats to our country and what we are going to do about them, have a strategy with a clear endgame, which we need and we haven't had for the last several years. Then we should authorize it because only Congress has the power to declare war. We should authorize it. And by authorizing it, we not only take responsibility, but we communicate to our friends and our foes alike, and to those servicemen and -women who put themselves at risk out there that we are behind it. We, as the Representatives of the American people, are behind it. So I hope that we can do that, but it won't be in this particular bill. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I may make sure that we are all clear about where we are on the START; the START runs through 2021. That is 4 years from now. What the bill says is that if we find that Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty--and there is some indication that that is true--that we wouldn't extend it beyond 2021. But that is 4 years from now. So what does that mean? This is a shot across the bow to Russia. We are telling Russia: If you continue to violate the INF Treaty, we are not going to extend with you on START. This is telling them: We are not going to let you get away with this. And I would think, at this point, after all that we have heard, we would want to stand up to Russia, and this is a very vital way to do that. Secondly, about the GTMO issue that he brought up, there are two amendments made in order by this rule for us to discuss GTMO, and I believe we are going to have that debate tonight. Now, I don't agree with the amendments, but we made them in order so we can have that debate on this floor. So we are going to debate GTMO. My prediction is that we are going to defeat both of those amendments, but the people on the other side of the aisle have been given a great opportunity to make their argument that we shouldn't do that. Nukes. Why are we trying to modernize our nuclear force? Because our adversaries are modernizing theirs, and if we don't, we are not doing the proper thing to protect the people of the United States. And then the gentleman talks about the budget bills. Now, there is a budget bill coming. Now, the budget bill is for the next fiscal year, October 1, 2017. That is several weeks from now. We have got time to pass a budget for next fiscal year. But the way we have everything set up here, we try to move these defense bills about this time of year so that we can do what we have got to do to make sure we have communicated to the military what they are going to have to do their jobs. If I may walk briefly around the world to remind us about where we are. Kim Jong-un has continued to test missiles throughout last year and this year, and he is getting better. And what he seeks is not just to strike South Korea or Japan, he wants to strike America. That is why you have an ICBM if you are in North Korea. We need to step up to the plate and do more in missile defense and more in other things to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect America from an attack from North Korea. China wants to take control of the South China Sea and the East China Sea. What does that mean to us for America? Forty percent of the trade in the world moves through those two oceans. The greatest population center in the world is right there. It is where we want to do more business, where people there want to do more business with us; and not having a robust military presence there means we cede that part of the world to China. I guess we could pull back to where we were on December 6, 1941, when we didn't have a presence in Guam and Japan and South Korea and Singapore. Or we could take the understanding from what happened that terrible day on December 7, 1941, that we have to be thinking now for the challenge to us then and, by making those preparations and making sure we have the defense in place, we keep December 7, 1941, from happening again. Then we have our good friends in Russia, as they push not only into Eastern Europe, but now into the Middle East. It used to be we thought that Russia was kind of off the table; you know, the Soviet Union collapsed; didn't have to worry about Russia anymore. Russia is back. They are back in many different military ways, in their navy, in their missiles, and what they are doing with their armed forces, including the little green men in Ukraine. We need to take that threat seriously, as we haven't had to take it for years. And then there is the Middle East. We know what is happening today in Mosul and in Raqqa. Perhaps ISIS is being pushed out of those places, but it is not disappearing. It is not going away as a threat, any more than al-Qaida has gone away as a threat. We still have terrorist groups like them and others who seek to do harm to the American people, whether it is over there or over here, and we have to provide for the defense against that. Then there is Iran; Iran that, because of an ill-considered agreement reached with them by the Obama administration, now is on a path to get an ICBM of its own, which it doesn't need to strike Israel. It needs an ICBM to strike us. Then they get as close as they want to under that agreement that we reached with them. Right up to the edge of violation, where they perfect their nuclear technology, they decide in a short period of time to violate it, put a nuclear weapon on one of those ICBMs and threaten us directly. That and a host of other threats are what we are talking about in this bill. We have never faced such a complex set of threats since the end of World War II. It is not my word. It is the word of countless experts who have come before our committee. We have to do this. The American people expect us to do this. Like many other people in this body, I do tele-townhalls. At my last two tele-townhalls, I have asked this open-ended question: What is the most important issue to you? We give them a broad range of issues to pick from: healthcare, tax reform, you name it. The number one issue in those two tele-townhalls, by far, for the people in my district was national security. They see what is happening in North Korea. They see what is happening in the Middle East. They know what Russia is up to. They are worried about China, and they want to know what we are doing. This bill that this rule provides for does what we need to do to protect the American people. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everything that I have heard today from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because I know people on both sides of the aisle care a great deal about these issues. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 431 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.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. We have debated this issue for years now, and every year we successfully maintain the prohibition on transferring dangerous detainees out of GTMO. It is important to remember that most of the 41 remaining prisoners are very dangerous. The language in the underlying bill is required to keep the American people and our allies safe. One of the main goals of Guantanamo Bay is to keep these terrorists from returning to the battlefield. Sadly, it has become clear that some of the detainees released have returned to the field to fight the United States. We ask our servicemembers to put their lives on the line each and every day in order to keep the American people safe. How can we ask them to do that, while knowing that we are releasing cruel, brutal terrorists back to the battlefield? It would be reprehensible. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and protect our servicemembers and the American people.

Mr. BYRNE

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

Mr. BYRNE

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

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I am proud to rise in support of this strong, bipartisan legislation. Improving career and technical education programs is the most important thing Congress can do to help close the skills gap, combat poverty, and help put Americans back to work. Studies clearly show that there are unfilled high-wage jobs out there that remain open because people lack the skills to fill the jobs. That is where CTE comes in. When I was chancellor of Alabama's 2-year college system, I saw firsthand just how impressive these programs are. They really do work like magic by taking an untrained worker and giving him the skills he needs to fill an in-demand job. It is a win-win for everyone. So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor and supporter of this legislation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this reform-oriented bill that helps build the 21st century workforce.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Rules Committee colleague for yielding. I am proud to support this rule and the Anti-Border Corruption Reauthorization Act. Mr. Speaker, last November, the American people sent a strong message: They want a secure southern border. Having a strong system of border security is critical to our national defense and the safety and the security of the American people. President Trump has asked us to get more boots on the ground protecting our border, and this bill is an important step in that process. U.S. Border Patrol agencies are the ones serving on the front lines when it comes to border security. These hardworking men and women serve day at night at the border, at airports, and at sea and land ports in an effort to keep us safe. We should be grateful for their service and their sacrifice. Unfortunately, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, is woefully understaffed. In fact, the numbers show that we are short 1,000 officers and 1,800 Border Patrol agents. This shortage is making it harder to secure the border and help keep bad actors out of our country. That is where this bill comes in. It would amend the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 to provide necessary discretionary waiver authority to the CBP Commissioner in an effort to reduce the staffing shortage. The bill specifically would provide the Commissioner with the authority to waive the polygraph examinations in three circumstances. The polygraph exam would be waived for current State and local law enforcement officers who have already passed a polygraph examination, Federal law enforcement officers who have already passed a stringent background investigation, and veterans with at least 3 consecutive years in the military who have held a clearance and passed a background check. These are three very tailored and specific circumstances, and these are exactly the kind of men and women we want and need when it comes to border security positions. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the waiver authority granted under this bill is not mandatory. It will ultimately be the decision of the CBP Commissioner to decide on a strict case-by-case basis whether to issue a waiver. The Commissioner can order a polygraph.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner can still order a polygraph for any applicant they deem necessary. This is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that passed out of the Homeland Security Committee on a voice vote, and I hope to see more bipartisan support here in the full House. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting a stronger and more robust border security system.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I appreciate his leadership to get us here both on the Rules Committee and the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, despite what you may hear in the media, this funding bill is a positive step forward for the American people and a big win for the Trump administration. I want to highlight a few reasons why. First, delivering on President Trump's promise, this bill makes long overdue and much-needed investments in our military. The bill boosts military spending by $21 billion, which will help boost military readiness and fund the largest pay raise for our troops in 6 years. Importantly, the bill finally rejects demands of Democrats to only increase defense spending if all other spending is also increased. This bill ends that harmful precedent. The bill devotes important new funding for border security. In fact, it contains the biggest increase in border security funding in almost a decade. This will allow us to make improvements to the wall at the border, put more Customs and Border Protection agents on the ground, and end the disastrous practice of ``catch and release.'' The bill includes important pro-life protections to ensure taxpayer money is not used to fund abortions. Just as important, the bill does not contain a penny of funding for Planned Parenthood. I am going to say it again: there is not a penny in here for Planned Parenthood. The bill includes important Second Amendment protections, increases funding to help fight crime, supports funding for Israel, provides money for missile defense, and sets aside additional resources to defeat ISIS. Even more, the bill cuts funding to the EPA, freezes funding for the IRS, and reduces the Federal Government's role in education. Finally, the bill makes progress and priorities important to my folks in southwest Alabama. For example, the bill fully funds three littoral combat ships, which are built, in part, by Austal USA in Mobile. These ships are critical to the United States Navy and are necessary if we are to reach the 355-ship fleet that President Trump wants. This funding bill will ensure we continue to build these first class vessels in Mobile. The bill also includes a provision important to our red snapper fishermen. With the help of Senator Richard Shelby, we were able to secure a permanent expansion of State waters out to nine nautical miles. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect--no compromise ever is--but I commend President Trump in negotiating a good bill to begin the process of implementing the priorities the American people sent him and us to Washington to accomplish. President Trump has called on Congress to pass this funding bill while we work to make even more progress in the upcoming fiscal year 2018 funding negotiations. I intend to do just that, and I call on my colleagues to do the same. I am glad to support President Trump, this rule, and the underlying bill.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 299 provides for the consideration of H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act. This resolution provides for a closed rule since no amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, the workforce of the 21st century is a lot different from the workforce of the thirties and forties when many of our Nation's labor laws were first written. As such, many of these laws are outdated and out of touch with the realities facing today's workers. For example, in nearly half of two-parent households, both Mom and Dad work full time. That is up from roughly 30 percent in 1970. Meanwhile, millennials now represent the majority of the workforce. Given the changes in the workforce, there are new challenges related to the work-family balance. From children's field trips, to taking care of an elderly family member, to a single parent juggling different tasks while their spouse is on a military deployment, the demands are greater than ever. That is where the Working Families Flexibility Act comes in. This commonsense bill would improve the quality of life for many hardworking men and women by removing outdated Federal restrictions imposed solely on the private sector. Already, workers in the public sector at the Federal, State, and local level have the ability to take comp time in lieu of overtime pay if they prefer. This bill would give that same option to workers in the private sector. Here is how it would work. An employee and their employer would come together and mutually agree to enter an arrangement where the employee would receive time and a half in time off or comp time instead of time- and-a-half overtime pay. In other words, employees would have the choice between paid time off and cash wages for working overtime. As I mentioned, this provision is already available for workers in the public sector. That is because, in 1985, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to give public sector employees greater flexibility. In fact, in a report filed by the House Education and the Workforce Committee more than 30 years ago, our Democratic colleagues wrote that this change in law recognized the ``mutual benefits'' of comp time for State and local governments and outlined the ``freedom and flexibility'' comp time would offer public sector workers. Shouldn't workers in the private sector be entitled to the same freedom and flexibility given to government workers? Now, I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say this bill is somehow bad for workers. That could not be further from the truth. Let me clear up some of the false information put out by union bosses and special interest groups. First, this proposal is completely voluntary. Both an employee and an employer would have to agree to a comp time agreement, and their agreement would have to be put in writing. Second, no employer can coerce or intimidate their employees into taking comp time. An employee who feels they have been mistreated can file a charge with the Department of Labor, at no cost, or they can bring their own legal action. Employers who take advantage of their employees would face the same penalties as they would for other wage violations. Now, as a labor and employment attorney, I have been a part of these kind of legal matters in the past, and I can honestly say that no sensible employer would take advantage of an employee and risk double damages, exorbitant attorney fees, and a legal battle with the Federal Government. Third, employees have control over when to use their comp time, as long as reasonable notice is given and the request doesn't unduly disrupt the workplace. This is the same standard used in the public sector, and it is the same standard used under the Family and Medical Leave Act. I imagine it is also the same standard used in each of our congressional offices. Fourth, this bill includes a 5-year sunset that would require Congress to come back and reaffirm this law after reviewing the impact of comp time. This would give us the ability to change the law based on the real-world impact. Fifth, the bill would set the maximum comp time accrual amount at 160 hours, which is less than what is allowed in the public sector. This provision was actually included after Democrats expressed concerns that workers would accrue too much comp time. Sixth, an employee has the right to cash out their comp time at any time and for any reason. This is a decision that the employee alone can make. Additionally, at the end of the year, employees would receive a cash payment for any unused hours. Finally, this is not a far-fetched or radical idea. In fact, President Bill Clinton had his own comp time proposal during his Presidency. So this bill is great for workers and actually gives them greater choice and flexibility in the workplace. In fact, our committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, heard a real-life example of how comp time would make life easier for families during a recent hearing on the bill. We heard about a clerical worker for a mental health company who recently found out she was pregnant and was putting in a lot of overtime during a transition to a new computer system. This mom-to-be simply wanted to waive the overtime pay and, instead, be credited the time for maternity leave. As her human resources professional testified: ``I had to explain to her that we were unable to do so because it was against the law. It was difficult conveying this message to this single mom-to-be who felt she should be allowed the option to choose for herself whether to take the overtime pay or paid leave when her child was born.'' That is why this bill is necessary, for people like this working mom. That is how this bill will make a real difference. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know comp time won't work for every worker or family, so if an employee wants to continue receiving time-and-a-half overtime pay, then they can continue to do so and this bill will have no impact on them. But this bill would create a new option for employees to better meet the needs of the 21st century workforce. Workers today want and need the type of freedom and flexibility that this bill provides. This bill would allow a working mom or dad to put in a little extra time at work in order to have that time off to attend a child's baseball game, dance recital, or field trip. This is all about freedom, flexibility, fairness, and choice. Certainly, more work and changes will be needed as we adapt to the workforce of the 21st century, and I look forward to learning more about proposals from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But the simple fact that there are other proposals out there should not stop us from passing this commonsense bill to give working families the flexibility they need and deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 299 and the underlying bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman referred to an old playbook being used here. He is right. It is an old playbook. It is a playbook that was used by House Democrats in 1985, by President Bill Clinton during the 1990s. This is not a partisan playbook. This is actually--or used to be, actually--a bipartisan idea to give workers flexibility in the use of their time. That doesn't sound radical to me. It is not radical at all. What has changed is Democrats used to be for this, and now, for whatever reason, they are not. They would rather lock workers into these restrictive arrangements where you have working mothers, like the one I used in my initial remarks, who can't get their flexible time off that they want because we do not allow them to do that under the Federal Labor Standards Act. Comp time is just not technically optional, as my friend said, under this law. It is optional by law. It is a voluntary thing by law. There is no question about that. Employers cannot coerce or intimidate an employee to do that under this law. It is strictly prohibited, and there are serious legal repercussions for an employer who attempts to do that. There are no differences in the protections for someone under this bill and the protections that public employees have when they seek to have this sort of flextime under the laws that pertain to them. It is the same protection. So it doesn't matter whether you are in the private sector or the public sector; under this bill, you are going to be protected. Let me tell you something, as someone who has practiced in this area. It is not an idle threat to an employer to face a regulatory proceeding from the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor or to face a private lawsuit. Those are a big deal. If you lose, you have to not only pay double damages, you have got to pay the employees' attorneys fees, which can be significant. No sensible employer is going to go out there and intimidate and coerce and think they can get away with it. They can't. Wages, under our bankruptcy laws, are the first priority of what is paid out during the winding up of a bankruptcy proceeding. Before any other creditor is paid, wages get paid. In my experience, I don't remember wages ever not being paid in a bankruptcy. That is always assumed. They get taken care of quickly. Most employers do the right thing. My friend talked about employers needing to do the right thing. Most employers do the right thing. Just like I know my colleague, when he had a business in the private sector, did the right thing by his employees. Most employers do. Yet too often in this body, we act as if the assumption is that employers are going to do the wrong thing, and then we come down with this heavy-handed overregulation, punitive approach that restricts the freedom of both employers and--let's get back to it--the workers themselves to work these things out. This is a commonsense solution to a real problem in the new workplace of the 21st century, where most moms and dads are working and where we have this new millennial generation that wants flexibility. They expect it. When you go to them and tell them: Oh, you can't have it because it is a Federal law, they don't understand. I have got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand. Yes, I understand that this law was put together in the 1930s. Maybe it made sense for the workplace in the thirties, but it doesn't make sense for the workplace of the 21st century. I am disappointed in my colleagues who used to be in favor of these sorts of flexible arrangements and no longer favor it, but I get that. I hope that the rest of us will use our common sense and use what we all know is really happening in the workplace today and support this very important bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from North Carolina and I worked together on many things, and I have great respect for her, but I think her argument ignores a very important fact about this bill, and that is that you can't be coerced into doing this. You have to do it voluntarily. If you would rather get your time and a half in pay, that is your decision. You are going to get it. The law requires that. There is nothing that forces anybody to get that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think my friends on the other side of the aisle don't understand how this works. An employee comes to their supervisor or the person who runs the HR office in the company and says: I would like to get some comp time in return for the overtime I am getting ready to work because I have got a specific reason to want to use it. The employer says: Okay, when do you want to get the overtime and when do you want to take the comp time? They work that out. The employer has the responsibility for having the system and the paperwork for showing that they have complied with the law. From an employer's point of view, that is an extra burden. It is really not in the interest of an employer to do this. An employer would really prefer to say: Look, I don't want to have to do this, because if I make a mistake, I am going to get in trouble with either a private lawsuit or the Department of Labor. So it is really better for the employer not to have this option because it is not going to be an option in which they can make a mistake. This is for that employee to get the comp time so they can have some flexibility in their schedule. That is who it is for. If they don't want to use it, they don't have to use it. They can still be paid the time and a half that they are paid today. No one can coerce them. The law says you can't do that, and there are real penalties for it. To the contrary, when we are hearing that somehow this is something for the employers, no, it is not. This is for the workers--the new workers of the 21st century, who sometimes I think we have forgotten about when we have these debates in this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of a true American hero, a dedicated veteran, and a successful businessman. Major John Jacobson enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1940 and fought in World War II, where he served as quartermaster to General George Patton. After his military career, he moved to Kansas and built a Fortune 500 company and became a leader in the meat-packing industry. After retiring and moving to coastal Alabama in 1999, Major Jacobson became a local celebrity. Mr. Jack, as he was affectionately known, spent much of his time working with local veterans organizations where he would speak with school groups about World War II and the sacrifice our veterans make. Sadly, he recently passed away at the age of 106, making him one of the country's oldest World War II veterans. Mr. Speaker, all you need to know about Major Jacobson is that he lived his life by a simple motto: Another day to live is another day to serve. To his family, thank you for sharing Mr. Jack with all of us. He made our community, the United States, and the world a better place.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.