Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 466 provides for consideration of H.R. 538, the Native American Energy Act, and H.R. 702, which would repeal the ban on exporting crude oil. H. Res. 466 calls for a structured rule which makes in order 12 total amendments, including 7 minority amendments and 2 bipartisan amendments. Both of these bills deal with easing the regulatory burden when it comes to the energy sector. Being from coastal Alabama, I have a great appreciation for the impact the energy sector has on our economy, and I am a strong supporter of an all-of-the-above approach to energy production. Unfortunately, Washington has a bad habit of putting up costly barriers that make it harder for the energy sector to grow and create new jobs. Today is about getting some of these barriers out of the way and unlocking our Nation's energy potential. One of the bills, the Native American Energy Act, would roll back the overregulation of Indian lands and encourage energy development by Indian tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. From streamlining duplicative Federal processes to increasing tribal control over natural resource development, this bill includes important reforms to unlock the precious energy resources on tribal land and to allow these tribes to take more control of their energy assets. In fact, a 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office found that ``Indian energy resources hold significant potential for development, but remain largely undeveloped.'' Mr. Speaker, they remain largely undeveloped because the Federal Government is standing in the way. This has resulted in lost revenue for Indian tribes, and it is time we fix this problem. This commonsense legislation has strong support from tribes across the Nation, including the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Navaho Nation, Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota, and the National Congress of American Indians. It is time the Federal Government gets out of the way and allows tribal nations to manage their land how they see fit, without the heavy hand of government getting in the way. The second bill covered by this rule would end the outdated ban on crude oil exports. The ban was first put in place in 1975 as a response to the Arab oil embargo, but it is clearly no longer necessary, and it is tying our hands both economically and strategically around the world. Over the last decade, the United States has become the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the world, which is good news for the countless Americans who work in the oil industry, and it is even better news for the American economy. Mr. Speaker, there is broad, bipartisan support for lifting the 40- year-old ban on crude oil exports. Leading economists, including former Obama economic policy adviser Lawrence Summers, and leading scholars at Harvard University support lifting the ban. Former U.N. Ambassador and Energy Secretary under President Clinton Bill Richardson said that the U.S. needs to export our oil and gas in order to ``help us geopolitically in Eastern Europe against Russia.'' Recently, 135 senior legislative leaders from 40 States and Puerto Rico sent a letter calling on Congress to lift the ban. The letter notes that ``the outdated Federal export restrictions on crude oil and LNG are detrimental to American workers, our collective security, and economic recovery in our States.'' There were three signers of the letter from Mr. Hastings' home State of Florida. Numerous editorial boards around the country, including those at The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Detroit News, The Denver Post, The Washington Times, and the Houston Chronicle have touted the benefits of ending the ban. Most notably, 69 percent of American people support lifting this ban. Shouldn't we stand with the American people? Now, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the benefits from lifting the outdated ban. First, it is estimated that this legislation would create 630,000 additional U.S. jobs by 2019. Lifting the ban would also benefit U.S. manufacturers and boost our GDP. Second, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that lifting the ban would generate $1.4 billion from oil and gas leases over the next 10 years. That is really a significant number. Third, the Government Accountability Office found that lifting the ban would lower gas prices by anywhere from 1.5 to 13 cents per gallon. Even President Obama's own Department of Energy found that increased oil exports would help lower gas prices. Fourth, lifting the ban will allow the United States to help our allies abroad. For example, Russia has continuously used their control over oil to pressure European countries to comply with Russia's wishes. If a country refused, Russia would threaten to cut off their energy supply. By lifting the ban, the United States can begin supporting our allies and, in turn, weaken Russia's grip on many European countries. Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that this administration has worked hard to open up oil export capabilities for Iran, yet they are refusing to allow the United States to do so. By allowing Iran to export oil, the President has essentially given the Ayatollah a leg up in the global marketplace, placing the strategic interests of Iran over those of the United States. This is yet another example of the President of the United States standing with the people of Iran and the Ayatollah and not standing up for the people of America. These are four very clear benefits for repealing the ban and unlocking our Nation's energy potential. Now, the White House has said they believe lifting the oil export ban is a decision that should be made by the Commerce Department, not by Congress. So let me get this straight: The Obama administration would rather unelected, unaccountable Federal bureaucrats at the Department of Commerce make this decision instead of the democratically elected Congress? I think that speaks to a far larger problem with this White House and how they believe our government should work. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are about empowering the American people and getting the government out of the way. These bills both have broad support, and I urge my colleagues to approve this rule. Let's move forward on passing these commonsense bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), who is a tireless advocate for the energy interests of his State of Louisiana.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I think what the gentleman from Florida said at the beginning was inaccurate. He said that we brought two things together in this rule that are not related to one another. They are. They are both related to energy production in this country, and that is what the rule is about. Now, I am standing here today as the grandson of a man who was shot and killed by someone who was mentally ill in 1920. I know the importance of that issue. I know what it means to families who have been victimized by it. There may be a day and a time for us to have this debate, but it is not today. Today, we are talking about the energy security of our country. Today, we are here to talk about freeing up the American economy and freeing up domestic producers so that they can sell their product abroad, as we are now going to allow Iran to sell their product abroad. I would like for us to get back to the debate on energy. That is what we are here today about. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Colorado made some interesting points. He said this is not serious, that the President is going to veto it. If we go back over the vote total in the Senate, this bill was passed in the Senate by a veto-proof majority. It passed in this House by a near veto-proof majority. If a couple more people from the other side will join with us, we can override that veto, and we would stand united behind our servicemen and -women. So it is, indeed, serious. If the President were serious, he wouldn't be threatening a veto. He would understand the importance at this point in time for the Congress and the President to stand together across party lines. We also heard about what is happening in Syria. I am a member of the House Armed Services Committee. I served on the conference committee that brought this report to us. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, this bill contains things that are critical to what we are doing in Syria. He talked about Guantanamo Bay. One of the main items that I was appointed to the conference committee for was for the provision that regards Guantanamo Bay and what we are going to do and not do with the prisoners there. He talked about the military's view of this. I have talked to dozens of generals and admirals about this very issue, and they would like for us to find a different way, but they understand and agree that this way gets us where we need to go. What is important to them is really not which way we get there but the fact that we get there. This gets us there. He talks about the fact that there is a failed policy here. There is a failed policy here. It is a failed policy of this administration in the Middle East. If we had done what we should have done in the Middle East, we wouldn't have Iran nuclearized. We wouldn't have Russia there flying sorties with their jets and daring the United States. The failure of policy here is the failure of the policy of the President of the United States. The House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrats and Republicans from both sides here have tried to work together to give the President the authorization he needed to do the right thing, to make sure we don't have the instability we have today in the Middle East. Instead, we have seen a President that seems to be inert, doing nothing. Russia comes in, makes this big play. What is the President doing? Nothing. We were asked this time last year to authorize the training of certain Syrian troops to combat ISIS. Well, they trained 50-some-odd. We have about six left. After all that, a year, all this time, all this money, that is what the failed policy is. The whole idea was not going to work, but we gave him the authorization because we are trying to stand behind our President. We are trying to push him to do the right thing. Still, nothing happens, except he threatens to veto this bill. If he wants to be the Commander in Chief that we need, he needs to stand with us. He needs to stand with the Congress. We need to stand together as Republicans and Democrats--we support our men and women in uniform--and do what needs to be done. Now, my friend from Colorado referenced the Iran bill and called it a charade. Let me assure him, this is not a charade to the people who have these judgments. To the people who are victims or the families of victims, this is far from a charade. This will get them real compensation. He says that there are no teeth here. Well, guess what. The sanctions don't get lifted unless Iran pays this money. I call that real teeth, because Iran wants that money more than anything else in the world right now because, with that money, they will go out and fund terrorism throughout the Middle East. What we will do here is not only get money to American people who have been victimized, but we will deny that money to Iran that will use it to fund Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. That is what this is all about. This is dead serious. This is as serious as you can possibly get. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would come together with us so we can do right by the American military and the men and women that wear our uniform and do right by American citizens who have been victimized by the largest sponsor of state terrorism. I have said this before, and I am going to say it again, that Iran bill is real clear. You stand with the Ayatollah or you stand with the United States citizens. It is one or the other. If you stand with the Ayatollah, you stand with the Ayatollah. I am going to stand with the citizens of the United States that have these judgments. They deserve to be paid. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate Mr. Polis being concerned that I am here by myself. I think it has been a good debate, and I know I have the full support of my colleagues behind me, and there will be a number of them here to debate the bill when it comes up after we adopt this rule. It is extremely important that we understand what we are about in these two bills. It is not about the Export-Import Bank. It is not about immigration. It is not about any of the other issues that he brought up. It is about defending the American people and making victims of Iran terrorism whole. That is what it is about. Now, I have seen the public opinion polls on national security. National security has rocketed up to be the number one issue for the people of America. I didn't need to see those polls. I have done 18 townhall meetings in the last several weeks in my district, and I have looked my constituents in the eyes and heard their concerns. They don't bring up the Export-Import Bank to me. They bring up the fact that they are worried about what is happening to our country's standing abroad. They are worried about what is going on with these brutal terrorists in the Middle East. They are worried about the fact that we have just given Iran a nuclear weapon. They are worried about whether we are going to have an adequate defense to continue to protect them, as we have for decades now, in a bipartisan fashion. That is what they are worried about, and that is what they expect us to come here and do something about. These two bills do something very important. The National Defense Authorization Act, for 53 years, has been passed in a bipartisan fashion, which has said to the world, which has said to our allies, which has said to our enemies, which has said to the men and women in uniform in the United States of America, we stand as one. Now this President and some--not all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to break that, after five decades, at this critical time. I find that hard to believe, but I accept the fact that it is nonetheless true. I would plead with them to reconsider that. I would plead with the President, who is our Commander in Chief, not to veto this bill. This is critically important at a critically important time. On the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act, you know, we don't get very many opportunities where we in this body can do something that will directly bring some measure of compensation to people, citizens of the United States, who have been victimized by the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. We don't get very many opportunities like that, and we have it right now this with this bill. We have the opportunity to make them whole, or come close to making them whole. They have got judgments from courts, valid judgments; and with the passage of this bill, which should truly be a bipartisan thing, and if the President signs it, with passage of this bill, we could give it to them. What a wonderful thing we could give to them after all the suffering they have been through. We would deny them that because we want to stand with the Ayatollah, because we think Iran is more important than they are? If we think for one second that Iran is going to take this money that is going to be released and use it for good and peaceful purposes, we are excessively naive. They are going to take this money, based upon what they have done in the past and what they are doing today, and they will use it to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and other terrorist groups around the Middle East and perhaps around the world not just against other people outside the United States, against people in the United States. So by passing that bill, we deny them tens of billions of dollars. They won't be able to use it for that. I wish that, for once, we could come into this room, on something of this magnitude and stand shoulder to shoulder, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans, which we have done for decades. It saddens me that the President and some of the members of his own party in this House would not do that. So I beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider, and I beg the President of the United States to reconsider. There has never been a more important time for us to stand together for the defense of this country and for the men and women in uniform.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the gentlewoman from Texas talked about justice. One of the bills that is in this rule is the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act. It is about justice for the victims and for the families, victims of state-sponsored terrorism by Iran. This doesn't undo the Iranian deal. If Iran pays the judgments, the deal goes forward. That is the law. So I would disagree with the gentlewoman with regard to the whole concept of justice. This rule contains a bill that is directly about justice. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the words of my good friend from the State of Washington, my co-chair for the Singapore Caucus. I know that he feels those words deeply. I agree with him that manufacturing is very important to this country. Manufacturing aircraft is very important to my district. We just opened up 3 weeks ago an Airbus facility that will make competing aircraft against Boeing. It is good for America to have competition. So I certainly agree with him about that. It has nothing to do with these two bills. We are here today again, amazingly, talking about the most important thing we do in our government, and we get off on a side issue. It is a side issue today. It may be a big issue tomorrow. But today we are here to talk about these two bills. My friend from Colorado for the second time has referred to the overseas contingency fund as a slush fund. The President of the United States, President Obama, has asked for that fund every year that he has been President, and we, the Congress, have given him that fund every year that he has been President. I don't think when the President asked for it or when the Congress gave it to him either side thought we were giving a slush fund. It has been used to protect the people of the United States. Everyone has agreed on that. It only became a slush fund when they didn't want it to be used for a particular purpose. It is not a slush fund. The purposes for which it will be used are spelled out in detail in the National Defense Authorization Act, an act, as I said, we have gone through in both Houses, through committees and floor debate and this very lengthy process of trying to get to this conference report. This is not a slush fund. This is something that is necessary to defending the country. So I hope, instead of using terms like that, which, quite frankly, does not reflect very well on President Obama, who asked for it, I think we should use other terms. And let's get back to the heart of this argument: Are we going to stand together for the defense of this country or are we not? Are we going to stand with Ayatollah or are we going to stand with the people who have been harmed by the Ayatollah. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I just observed that the gentleman from Michigan talked about something that had nothing to do with the defense of this country or getting these judgments paid for American citizens who were victims at the hands of Iran. What he is talking about may be important at a time down the road, but it is not relevant to what we are talking about today. The bipartisanship we need today is to stand up for the American people and defend the American people and to provide for our servicemen and -women, to make the victims of Iranian tyranny, make them whole. Let's get together and be bipartisan about that, and maybe there will be more opportunities to be bipartisan about these other issues. Let's not confuse what is on the floor today with what people want to talk about down the road. Let's have a bipartisan majority, a big bipartisan majority, a veto-proof majority, pass both of these bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 449 provides a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3457, the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act, and the conference report to accompany H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. Mr. Speaker, these two bills are directly related to one of the most important functions of Congress, which is to provide for the national security of our country. For 53 straight years, Congress has come together in a bipartisan fashion to pass a National Defense Authorization Act to ensure that our military men and women have the resources and the policies they need to do their job. Even in an era of deep partisanship in Congress, we have still been able to keep the tradition alive and pass an NDAA each year. This rule would allow us to keep that tradition alive. The NDAA process has been a great example of following regular order and doing congressional business the way it is supposed to be done. In both the House and the Senate, the respective Armed Services Committees held multiple hearings and markups that allowed all Members to have a role in the process. Here in the House, the NDAA came up for a vote on the floor with a record number of amendments--135, to be exact. It passed with bipartisan support by a vote of 269-151. The Senate followed a very similar process and was able to approve their version of the bill by a vote of 71-125, a veto-proof majority. Since our bills were different, the last few months have been spent in a conference committee to iron out the differences. The bill doesn't include everything I would like, but it is the true definition of a bipartisan collaborative work product. This NDAA is a textbook example of how Congress should work. Despite all of that, I am shocked to learn that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not supporting this critical legislation. Even worse, the President has threatened to veto this bill. Mr. Speaker, let's take a quick look at what is going on in the world today. North Korea is trying to develop an ability to deliver a nuclear warhead to our allies in South Korea and to other places. China is building new islands in the western Pacific and daring America to come into what they now claim is their new sea space and airspace. Russia has pushed into Crimea, is consolidating its gains in the Donbass; Iran has just now been given the ability to get a nuclear weapon; ISIS and other terrorist groups are running wild in the area that used to be Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. Now we have Russia coming into that same area in Syria and using their jets for military purposes and daring us to get in those skies with them. In the middle of all of this, we should be having a bipartisan, unified front to tell the world, to tell our adversaries, to tell our allies, and to tell our service men and women that we are united. There is no Republican, there is no Democrat when it comes to the defense policy of this country. Instead, we are going to have a debate not about the defense policy of our country, but about whether we are going to fund other functions of government, whether we are going to fund the IRS at a high level that the President wants, whether we are going to fund the Environmental Protection Agency that is attacking businesses across this country. We are going to talk about all those domestic issues and not talk about the defense of the country at this critical juncture. If there ever was a time when we should continue that tradition of standing together, it would be today. And for our President, our Commander in Chief, to threaten to veto this bipartisan bill is simply beyond belief. Now, I expect my friend from Colorado will argue that they oppose this bill because we should be spending more money on nondefense programs, and that is a debate worth having, but this is not the time for that debate. There is nothing more important for us to do today than to make sure that we are standing tall and standing unified for the defense of our country, and we should never ever use the military as a pawn in some political game to increase controversial nondefense spending. Today's debate should be about providing for our Nation's military men and women and their families, and I hope my colleagues and the President will reconsider their objections. This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3457, the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act. A lot has been said on this floor recently about the threat and dangers posed to the United States and our allies by the Islamic Republic of Iran. I don't want to rehash that debate, but I do think it is important to remember that Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism on the globe. Over the past 15 years, more than 80 judgments have been handed down against Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act exception for state sponsors of terrorism. These judgments add up to over $43.5 billion in unpaid damages. This straightforward bill would simply require Iran to pay each of these Federal court judgments before the President can lift, waive, or suspend any sanctions currently in place against Iran. Let me briefly highlight a few examples of these judgments. In 1985, a Navy petty officer named Robert Stethem was killed during the hijacking of TWA flight 847. Hezbollah, an Iran-financed terrorist organization, was found responsible for the hijacking and his family is now owed $329 million, and that is in a Federal court judgment. My friend from Colorado might be particularly interested in this one. Thomas Sutherland, a teacher at Colorado State University for 26 years, was the former dean of agriculture at the American University of Beirut. He was kidnapped on June 9, 1985, after Iran directed terrorists to kidnap Americans in Lebanon. He was held in prison until November 18, 1991. His judgment is for $323.5 million. There is the story of Alan Beer, an American living in Israel who was tragically killed after the Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hamas blew up a bus in Jerusalem. There is a $300 million judgment against Iran for Alan's death. These are just a few stories of Americans who have been tragically injured, killed, tortured, and kidnapped by Iranian-sponsored terrorist organizations. I simply can't understand why some of my colleagues and the President won't support this bill. This shouldn't be a partisan debate. American courts have already ruled that Iran owes money to these individuals and their families, citizens of the United States. So why is it controversial to require that these payments are made before rewarding Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief? This bill is really pretty simple to me. You can either stand with American citizens or you can stand with the Islamic Republic of Iran. You can stand with the Ayatollah or the families of servicemembers who were killed by Iran-backed terrorists. To me, this is an obvious choice. Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are more than deserving of broad, bipartisan support, and I hope that they receive just that. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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, 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 449 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember an American hero, Dr. Sidney Phillips, Jr., who passed away in Mobile over the weekend at the age of 91. Dr. Phillips was a veteran of World War II, where he served in the Marine Corps. At the young age of 18, Sid Phillips took part in the famous battle of Guadalcanal in the Pacific. Dr. Phillips was one of the most well-known and respected veterans in Alabama. His career was profiled in Ken Burns' PBS documentary ``The War'' and Steven Spielberg's HBO series ``The Pacific.'' To many of us from the Mobile area, we remember Sid Phillips as a local family doctor, a patriotic family man, and a strong advocate for our Nation's veterans. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of my constituents in Southwest Alabama, I want to share my condolences with Sid Phillips' family and friends. He embodied the American spirit, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the students, faculty, staff, and administration at the University of Mobile for their commitment to community service through ``Project Serve.'' The University of Mobile, which was founded in 1961 by Alabama Baptists as a Christian university, established Project Service during the university's 50th anniversary in 2011. For Project Serve, the university cancels classes for the day, and the classroom moves into the community in order to provide students and faculty with an opportunity to serve others. This year's event will be held on September 25th. This is a record year for Project Serve with more than 1,200 members of the University of Mobile community signed up. On the 25th, these students will spread out to over 60 locations in Mobile and Baldwin counties to take part in service activities. For example, students from the School of Nursing will administer blood pressure checks, do laundry, and paint fingernails for residents of Little Sisters of the Poor. The RamCorps brass and percussion unit will perform for youth at the Strickland Youth Center. The men's basketball team will partner with Habitat for Humanity to build homes. These are just a few examples of the service projects that will make a big difference for people in Southwest Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the University of Mobile for making community service such an important part of their college experience. Through Project Serve, students will learn that there is more to personal development than just what you can find in a textbook. While Project Serve will only last one day, I am confident the experience will lead to a lifetime of service for everyone in the University of Mobile community.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, by now, we have all seen the appalling videos which depict Planned Parenthood officials talking about how they crush babies in certain ways to preserve certain organs and then bargaining over the price of those organs. I want to be crystal clear. The loss of any human life is a tragedy, but the casual nature in which the Planned Parenthood officials talk about killing a baby is simply heartbreaking and appalling. It is unconscionable that any American could be that cold and callous. Let me tell you about the Planned Parenthood clinic in my hometown of Mobile, Alabama. They were cited by the Alabama Department of Health for performing two abortions on a 14-year-old girl in a span of 4 months without their complying with State laws that require the reporting of possible sexual abuse. This is the type of organization we are talking about. Congress cannot simply sit on the sidelines and wait for someone else to respond. These egregious actions require a response. Madam Speaker, I do not believe the Federal Government should be spending a single penny on Planned Parenthood, and H.R. 3134 would make that a reality. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Christopher P. Puto, who will be installed as the 37th President of Spring Hill College, the oldest Catholic college in the Southeast, on September 17. Spring Hill College is located in Mobile, Alabama, which is the largest city in Alabama's First Congressional District. Dr. Puto will be returning to Spring Hill College, where he graduated in 1964 with a degree in economics. He then went on to earn a Master of Business Administration in marketing from the University of Miami followed by a Doctorate in Business Administration from Duke University, my own alma mater. In 1998, as dean of the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, he introduced a new MBA program curriculum and initiated a curriculum redesign for the undergraduate business program. He also created a comprehensive strategic planning process for the school and raised $80 million in the first three years of a $150 million capital campaign. From 2002 to 2014, Dr. Puto served as the dean and the Opus Distinguished Chair in the Opus College of Business at the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic college in Minnesota. At St. Thomas, Dr. Puto designed and introduced the university's first full-time MBA program and first full-time accountancy program. In addition to his contributions to academia, Dr. Puto has also achieved success through industry and consulting experience. In fact, he started his career as an allied sales manager at Burger King Corporation, where he played a part in developing the ``Have It Your Way'' advertising campaign. Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Puto back to Southwest Alabama. Spring Hill College has long been a critical part of the local community, and I look forward to working with Dr. Puto in his new role.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to an important occasion: Constitution Week. This week is set aside to allow Americans to reflect on their responsibilities under the Constitution and encourage us to study our founding document. This significant designation was made official by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 2, 1956 at the urging of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). The patriotic celebrations that accompany this week are essential for maintaining reverence for this inspirational charter. Since our country's inception, we have endured as a society committed to securing and protecting the basic rights of all citizens. While our founding document has been amended throughout our nation's lifetime, the basic rights ratified 228 years ago remain intact today. This body, at the most fundamental level, retains its foremost responsibility of protecting these rights. After all, we are all members of the ``People's House.'' May we never forget where our authority derives. We have remained a country committed to freedoms through many trials and triumphs over the years. Countless of our fellow citizens have sacrificed their lives in honor of that pledge. From the Continentals who first defended the freshly formed Union, to those who are currently serving in harm's way around the globe; these men and women allow us to enjoy our sacred homeland in peace. Mr. Speaker, I want to make a special mention about the work being done by the Ecor Rouge Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Baldwin County, Alabama, to bring attention to our nation's most important governing document during Constitution Week. So on this Constitution Week, I encourage all Americans to set aside time to read our nation's Constitution and reflect on the many sacrifices made throughout history to protect this document and our freedoms.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I along with my Alabama colleague, Congressman Mike Rogers, rise today to recognize the 125th anniversary of the Beta Theta chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity. The Beta Theta chapter is located on-campus at Auburn University in our home state of Alabama. Sigma Nu Fraternity was founded on January 1, 1869, on the campus of Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia. The Beta Theta chapter of Sigma Nu was chartered by the High Council on September 18, 1890, and is the 27th charter granted by the High Council. The chapter has been continuously operating on Auburn's campus since that day. For the last 125 years, members of Auburn's Sigma Nu fraternity have made a lasting impact on their city, state, and country. Sigma Nu members have served in our nation's military to protect freedom at home and abroad in every war since 1890. Members of the fraternity have been leaders in business, medicine, law, politics, and community service. The Knights of Sigma Nu Fraternity at Auburn have also made a lasting impact on their campus. From community service to leadership roles in student organizations, Sigma Nu has contributed to the betterment and well-being of Auburn University. Most importantly, the men of the Beta Theta Chapter of Sigma Nu have a proud history of upholding their guiding ethical values of love, honor, and truth over the last 125 years. So Mr. Speaker, Congressman Rogers and I are proud to recognize the Beta Theta Chapter of Sigma Nu Fraternity, and we look forward to their continued positive impact at Auburn University and throughout our great nation.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Chairman Sessions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in strong opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement. Mr. Speaker, President Obama has created a false choice by claiming the only alternative to this deal is war. First of all, this deal itself can most definitely lead to war. By giving one of our biggest enemies access to nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and billions of dollars in sanctions relief, we are effectively giving Iran the tools they need to live out their dream of bringing ``death to America.'' The other flaw in the President's logic is that there are actually other alternatives than war. What about a better deal that includes anytime, anywhere inspections? What about increasing the sanctions which were clearly working to begin with? What about requiring the release of Americans held as political prisoners in Iran? These are clear alternatives. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House, so I think it is critically important that we actually listen to the people. Last month, I held over 15 townhall meetings all across my district. At each and every stop, someone asked me what Congress is going to do to stop the Iran nuclear deal. Just look at the public opinion polls. Only 21 percent of those surveyed in a recent poll said they approve of this agreement. That is less than one in four Americans who believe this is a good deal. I implore my colleagues to put the opinion of the American people over loyalty to some political party. I ask my colleagues to listen to our Nation's military leaders, who have made clear the serious consequences of giving Iran access to ICBMs, instead of party bosses. I plead with my colleagues to look past the short-term legacy of our President and, instead, look at the long-term ramifications this deal will have on the safety and security of the American people. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater responsibility of this House than to do everything we can to keep the American people safe. With that in mind, I strongly urge my colleagues to stand strong and oppose this deal.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about one of the biggest problems facing our Nation, out-of-control spending. At this very moment, the national debt sits at over $18 trillion. We have not arrived at this point because of the actions of one party or of one administration. Over the years, both parties have enacted programs that have increased our debt. That said, we have reached a point at which we must get serious about reining in our out-of-control spending, or we may fall victim to a similar fate that many nations throughout history have experienced. Here in the U.S., our spending problems are reaching a crisis level, and we are effectively leaving behind a catastrophe for the next generation. The basis of the American Dream is that, if you work hard, you can leave behind a better future for your children and grandchildren. That fundamentally American vision is in jeopardy due, in part, to our irresponsible spending. I am a new and very proud grandfather. My grandson, MacGuire, is about to turn 1, and already, his share of the national debt before his first birthday is over $40,000. We cannot turn a blind eye to this problem and pretend that it will just get better. Let me explain why. There are two basic forms of Federal spending, mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Mr. Speaker, when most people think of the Federal Government, they are probably thinking about discretionary programs, which is money that goes to things like our military, highways, national parks, agriculture, and medical research. The good thing about discretionary spending is that, each year, Congress has the ability to control these spending levels through the appropriations process. Since Republicans took control of the House in 2010, we have had some success in cutting funding to various Federal agencies. For example, agencies like the IRS and the EPA have seen their budgets cut in response to egregious executive overreach. While it may seem like it covers the majority of government operations, discretionary spending actually only makes up about one- third of all Federal spending. The other portion of spending is what we call mandatory spending. This, along with the interest on the national debt, makes up almost two-thirds of all Federal spending. Now, here is the really bad part about mandatory spending: it is on autopilot. Unlike discretionary spending, mandatory spending does not require annual appropriations from Congress. Instead, as long as someone meets the requirements, these programs dole out money without any action from Congress. Within these mandatory spending programs are what we call ``means-based entitlement programs,'' including things like Medicaid, ObamaCare, food stamps, welfare, and the like. For example, in fiscal year 2012, the Federal Government spent almost $800 billion on over 92 programs that were aimed at lifting Americans out of poverty. Despite that record spending, too many Americans simply stopped looking for work. The system is failing the very people it was designed to help. While many of these means-based entitlement programs have good intentions, they aren't supposed to be permanent. These programs were created to help lift people out of poverty, not to keep them there. That is why it shouldn't be a surprise that, during the recent economic downturn, spending on these means-based entitlement programs ballooned. What is surprising, however, is that, as the economy has improved, the spending on these programs has not gone down. In fact, the spending on some of these programs remains at alltime highs. Now, Republicans and Democrats both agree that Americans shouldn't be stuck in poverty, and that is why we should put party politics aside and come together to address this dangerous cycle of government dependence. We need to reform these means-based programs to put a real focus on workforce training to help connect Americans with the skills they need to get good-paying jobs that meet workforce demands. We could block grant, through the appropriations process, money to State governments and allow them to craft poverty fighting programs based on each State's specific societal programs and economic needs. I know that reforming these mandatory spending programs won't be easy, but I didn't run for Congress to come here and make easy decisions. I doubt my colleagues did either. Before I leave this body, I want to be able to look at my grandson, MacGuire, and know that I have been part of a real effort to rein in spending and put our Nation on a fiscally stable path for the next generation. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in addressing our Nation's spending crisis. Let's come together and make the tough choices. Let's get our spending under control, and let's leave behind a better America for the next generation.