Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. I rejoice with the gentlewoman from Ohio that there is a company there that is making money. We should always be about American companies making money. But if they are making money, they don't need a subsidy from the government. I would like you to come to Alabama, where coal miners are losing their jobs because we have a war on coal in this country. We give lip service to all-of-the-above, and then the administration has a deliberate policy of attacking coal as a means of energy for our country and putting people out of work. So I would invite you to come down and see the suffering of our people because of that one-sided strategy: we are going to attack coal, but we are going to give money to alternative energy. There is something wrong with that. So I understand the gentlewoman wants to stand up for a great company in Ohio--I would love to come see it--because I think an all-of-the- above strategy is good for America, but we are picking winners and losers with this money, and the administration is picking losers by attacking coal as a source of energy and a source of jobs for our American people. So I would hope that we would care as much about those coal miners in West Virginia and Kentucky and Alabama.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BYRNE. Reclaiming my time, I would just say I wish we could put money into that program like we do into this. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to strike all funding of the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program. This program, under the Department of Energy, allows the government to invest millions--indeed, over $1 billion--of taxpayer money in high- risk research and development schemes for green energy projects. The government should not be in the business of subsidizing the research and development initiatives of individual companies. Let's be clear. Competition and innovation have been key aspects of the private sector's success in our country from day one, and the government should not take the role of a private investor. Every business has a bottom line, which is itself a direct incentive for developing methods for becoming more energy efficient and innovative. By subsidizing this small sector of the energy economy, we are essentially allowing the Department of Energy to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on unconventional energy initiatives and projects that place taxpayer dollars at risk and that are not likely to produce a return on investment. We as a Congress have continuously stated the need for an all-of-the- above energy strategy, but continued investment into the EERE program focuses on the small portion of a largely unproductive portion of the energy sector at the expense of more traditional energy sources, such as fossil fuels and nuclear, which have a proven, reliable track record. I do want to applaud Chairman Simpson and the entire committee for their work on this bill. I know they face many tough choices when it comes to preparing these bills, and I do appreciate their hard work. Ultimately, the American people are sick and tired of a Federal Government that continues to recklessly spend taxpayer dollars. They want to see Congress make the tough choices and rein in wasteful spending. I believe that eliminating funding for the EERE program would be a step in the right direction. It would be a small step toward restoring fiscal sanity in Washington. At a time when many Americans and small businesses continue to struggle, we must focus on reasonable energy strategies that allow for the most affordable and reliable energy resources for consumers and businesses alike. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE. Then you understand what I am saying.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an important clarifying amendment that will help ensure our Nation's veterans have the choices they deserve when seeking medical care. Last year, Congress passed the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act. In addition to many important reforms, this bill created a VA Choice Card program. Under the law, veterans who are experiencing wait times of more than 30 days or who live more than 40 miles from a VA facility can seek private care. This was great news for veterans all across the Nation who had been stuck in a backlog or who lived a significant distance from a VA clinic. Like many of my colleagues, I praised this legislation as a major step forward. Unfortunately, due to a self-serving interpretation, the VA has put up barriers that restrict veterans' access to private care. First, the VA calculated the 40-mile requirement in a straight line, or as the crow flies, instead of calculating based on driving distance. After much pushback from veterans' organizations and from Members of Congress, the VA recently changed the interpretation to driving distance. I applaud the VA for making that change. However, the VA is still misinterpreting the law. The VA says, if a veteran lives 40 miles from a VA facility of any kind regardless of what services are offered, then he is not eligible for private care. My district paints a good picture of why this is problematic. We have a VA outpatient clinic in Mobile that only provides minimal services, but the VA claims that, since that clinic is there, our veterans cannot seek private care even if the services they need are not provided by the local clinic. That is especially frustrating because Mobile is home to a number of large, first class hospitals which could provide adequate care to our veterans. For example, if a veteran needed orthopedic surgery, he would be forced to travel to Pensacola or to Biloxi to seek that care even though he could get that surgery done right in his hometown. That is not how the legislation was intended to work. Recently, VA Secretary Bob McDonald asked Congress for the ability to shift money away from the VA Choice Card program into other accounts. I am disappointed that the Secretary would already be giving up on this program while it is still in its infancy. It is even more frustrating considering that one of the biggest obstacles to the program's success is the VA's own self-serving interpretation. My simple amendment would clarify that the VA cannot move money out of the Choice Program account. We need to give this program time to work and allow veterans access to private care instead of forcing them to travel hundreds of miles out of the way to receive care. Additionally, I have introduced stand-alone legislation, which is supported by Republicans and Democrats from 15 different States, that would correct the VA's interpretation and make clear that veterans are eligible for private care when they live more than 40 miles from a VA facility that provides the care the veterans need. I am optimistic that the House will act on this commonsense bill. Today, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Let's prevent the VA from transferring funds away from the Choice Card program, and let's work together to give our veterans the choices they need and deserve when seeking medical treatment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great community leader, Mr. Willie Thomas Gray. Mr. Gray is a native of the Citronelle area in north Mobile County, where he graduated from Citronelle High School. He is the owner and publisher of two weekly newspapers in the area: The Call News and the Washington County News. Under his leadership, the papers have consistently received various press association awards. He is also an active member of the Alabama Press Association and the National Newspaper Association. After his local chamber of commerce went inactive a number of years ago, Willie Gray stepped up to the plate. He arranged meetings of local business, civic, church, and education leaders to promote the continuation of civic involvement and formed the Citronelle Business Association. Today, Mr. Gray remains active in economic development efforts in the community. His work has included the execution of a professional study, including following-up on the results and planning for development based on its findings. Mr. Gray has also taken an active role in the betterment of the north Mobile County schools. As a foremost advocate for education, he worked with the Mobile County Public School System to move ahead with construction of a new Citronelle High School and Calcedeaver Elementary School and an extensive renovation of historic Rosa A. Lott Middle School. The renovations and new constructions were critical, as some of the buildings were over 100 years old. Mr. Speaker, we need more people like Willie Gray in our nation. His commitment to the local schools, businesses, and civic organizations serves as a bright example of community involvement. I look forward to a continued partnership with Mr. Gray as we work towards the common goal of making Southwest Alabama a better place to live, work, and raise a family.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my serious concerns about the ongoing Iran nuclear talks. Iran is no friend to the United States or our allies. Iran remains the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Iran has continued to develop intercontinental ballistic missile technology. The only legitimate purpose of such technology is to deliver a nuclear payload. Don't just take my word for it. Lieutenant General Vincent Stewart, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently wrote in his statement for the record to the House Armed Services Committee: The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to threaten U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. Iran's actions and policies are designed to further its goal of becoming the dominant regional power, as well as to enhance its strategic depth. Tehran views the United States as its most capable adversary and has fashioned its military strategy and doctrine accordingly. In terms of nuclear capabilities, General Stewart goes on to say: We continue to assess that Iran's goal is to develop capabilities that would allow it to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons, should a decision be made to do so. The regime faces no insurmountable technical barriers to producing a nuclear weapon, making Iran's political will the central issue. One Arab official recently told The Wall Street Journal: ``We prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal.'' Since they started in 2009, the negotiations with Iran have been marked by missed deadline after missed deadline. It seems like each time details of the deal are leaked to the press, the United States is giving up more, whether it is the number of centrifuges or the length of the deal. Just last week, Secretary of State John Kerry came before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and pleaded for more time and understanding as the State Department continues to hold talks about Iran's nuclear program. He asked it to sit silently while the details are negotiated in secret. He urged us to just trust him and his team. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly hard to trust an administration that continually fails at these kinds of negotiations. Look at the Bergdahl deal when he gave away five high-level al Qaeda officials. Look at the recent talks with Cuba in which the United States received very little while we released Cuban spies and pledged open trade relations. And we can't forget about President Obama telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have ``more flexibility'' to deal with nuclear issues after the 2012 Presidential elections--flexibility to deal with Vladimir Putin. Far too often they give away the bank, and we get very little in return. Tomorrow, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will come to this Chamber to share his perspective on the threats posed by a nuclear Iran. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have complained that the speech is somehow out of line or for political purposes only. They have pledged to boycott the event, and the Vice President has refused to attend. Mr. Speaker, I remain greatly disturbed by the way the Obama administration has treated Israel, our greatest and most important ally in the Middle East. I suspect the real reason the Obama administration is so opposed to Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech is because they are afraid of what he is going to say. They know he will speak the truth and that his statements will stand in direct contrast to what is being said by Secretary of State Kerry. Prime Minister Netanyahu won't hide the real issues. These nuclear talks threaten not only Israel, but also the Middle East and the entire world. Last summer, I traveled to the Middle East with the Armed Services Committee. During that trip, we met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he really impressed me. He has a clear vision and message about his country's defensive needs, and he is very determined to meet those needs. Mr. Speaker, Israel is our strongest and most consistent ally in the Middle East. We should listen to what they have to say.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion, and I would like to address the House with the reasons why. I have been here for a year and 2 months, and I believe in my time here, this is the first time that we have actually been in the position to get a bill back from the Senate on which they disagreed with us and that we have even the opportunity to go to a conference. Now, when I took high school civics, it was my understanding that that is the way the process works. The bill starts in one House, goes to another House; the other House disagrees, and it comes back to the other House. If the other House wants to go and discuss it, we go to conference and discuss it. This House took a very important position back in January to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and we added some riders. Now we need to go to conference so that our position, the House's position, can be fully discussed by the conferees for both Houses. During that discussion, we don't know what the outcome will be, but that discussion could lead to something that could get us a solution. That is what the people of America want us to try to do is to get to a solution. So far what we have tried hasn't worked. Now, I wish the Senate had acted earlier. I wish we could have gotten this back in time enough for us not to have to go through some of the gyrations we are doing now, but we are where we are. To go to conference and to give whoever is appointed as the House conferees the opportunity to work with whoever is appointed from the Senate as their conferees to try to arrive at something like a consensus that we can all vote for--even if we don't feel 100 percent good about it--seems to be what I thought we learned in high school civics class is the way the process is supposed to work. So I hope that we will go forward. I hope this motion is defeated for that purpose, so that we can do things in regular order, which perhaps this Congress has forgotten to do, it has been so many years since we have done it. Now that the Senate has acted--and many of us, including me, have said we wanted the Senate to act--let's take their action, go to a conference committee with them, and work on trying to get this thing worked out. Now, some people say that this isn't going to work, that nothing is going to come of it. I tell you this: if we don't try it, absolutely it is not going to work; but if we give it a chance, then we could get something out of it that is a win not for us in this House or the Senate, but a win for the people of the United States of America, the people we are here to represent. So I hope that the people in both Houses and both parties can come together at least long enough for us to talk with one another, not at one another, not from an ideology, not from a partisan standpoint, but from the standpoint of what is best for the people of the United States and for what is appropriate under the Constitution of the United States, because we are also here, as our oath requires, to uphold the Constitution of our country. I believe our conferees should have an opportunity to go in there and do the right thing to protect the people of America through the funding of the Department of Homeland Security and to do the right thing to defend the Constitution of our country. By defeating this motion and going forward with the conference, we give the process a chance to work, and to work well, in both of those regards. So I respect the people on the other side who think we should just give in; but I don't think we should just give in, because I don't think the American people want us to just give in. I think the American people want us to do our work, to make sure we protect our country by appropriately funding the Department of Homeland Security, but that we also protect our country by defending the Constitution of the United States. I believe the actions taken by the President are unconstitutional. A judge has stayed those actions because he has got some legal issues with them. I don't know what is going to happen in that court proceeding. I am not going to try to predict that here on the floor of the House, because a lot of times you try to predict a court proceeding, you will find out you are wrong. In the meantime, we still have an obligation to do our job, and I think going forward with this conference committee is doing our job in the most important of senses. I appreciate the opportunity to stand here today and address this House and to urge my colleagues to defeat this motion so that we can do something we haven't done in a number of years, and that is to fulfill the obligations given to us by our forebears, do our job, get this thing done, get it done right, and make sure that we have done right by the people of the United States.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, back in December, President Obama gave a major speech regarding the United States policy towards Cuba. The President said: I do not believe we can continue doing the same thing for five decades and expect a different result. In other words, the President is saying that, when something isn't working, we need to try a new approach. I wonder if the President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree that we should apply that same standard to our Nation's education policy. As a former member of the Alabama State school board and as the former chancellor of postsecondary education for Alabama, I think it is time for a change. For the last 50 years, Federal education policy has failed our students, especially our Nation's poor students, who need us the most. Just look at the statistics. Only 38 percent of high school seniors can read at grade level, and just 26 percent are proficient in math. Survey after survey shows that the United States is lagging behind other countries in terms of education. We clearly need a new approach, and that is why I was proud to support the Student Success Act yesterday in our Committee on Education and the Workforce. For too long, the focus has been on the needs and wishes of Washington special interest groups instead of on the needs of those who matter the most--the students. It is time we change that. Immediately, two glaring flaws come to mind when looking at current policy: First, our local teachers and administrators are drowning in paperwork and mandates. While only 10 percent of the funding for K-12 education comes from the Federal Government, the Government Accountability Office has found that 41 percent of the paperwork comes from the Federal level. That is unacceptable. Second, title 1 funds, which are intended to support our Nation's most vulnerable, are picking and choosing winners by forcing money to some schools and by not allowing that money to others. The money should follow the student. We shouldn't allow students to remain stuck in failing schools. Every child deserves a fair chance. Mr. Speaker, this top-down, heavyhanded Federal approach to education is not working, and, frankly, it is outdated. It is not the 1960s anymore: there are more than three television networks; we aren't all eating Wonder Bread; our phones aren't rotary phones tied to the wall; and our education system shouldn't be stuck in the sixties either. Instead of focusing on special interest groups, let's turn the focus to students, parents, and local leaders. While the other side is always quick to point out the D.C. special interest groups, which stand by their failed approach, the Student Success Act is supported by the National School Boards Association, which is made up of more than 90,000 local school board members. These are the very people who are actually dealing with Federal education policy and how it actually works on the ground every day, and they want a new approach. Democrats and Republicans and these local school boards want a new approach. Our teachers need the flexibility to innovate. That is why the Student Success Act reforms a patchwork of narrowly scoped grant programs and, instead, creates a Local Academic Flexible Grant, which allows local schools to spark innovation and use teaching methods that work best for their students. During committee debate yesterday, my colleagues on the other side were so committed to these same old, failed education policies that they even defended the universally disliked highly qualified teacher requirement. While I agree we need the best teachers possible in the classroom, who are Federal bureaucrats in Washington to decide what makes you highly qualified? Teachers in southwest Alabama and all across our country agree that the highly qualified teacher provision is simply not effective. Yet my colleagues on the other side and their special interest buddies refuse to give up power and allow us to move in a different direction. It is time for the Federal Government to get some humility. Washington bureaucrats don't know how to educate our children, but local superintendents, school boards, teachers, and principals do, so let's empower them. It is time we restored local control over education policy and put power in the hands of those who know our students best. Let's put the focus on the student for once, and that is exactly what this act does. I think the President may be on to something. We shouldn't continue with the same, failed education policy that has failed us for decades. We should get away from this centralized approach to education, which has failed the students throughout America. Mr. Speaker, the Student Success Act offers that new approach. I urge the leadership of this House to bring the Student Success Act to the floor for a vote, and let's empower parents and local education leaders. For once, let's put the students first.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Black History Month and to pay tribute to two important African Americans from Alabama's First Congressional District. While researching the history of some of my predecessors, I discovered that two of the earliest African Americans to serve in Congress actually represented the First Congressional District. Mr. Benjamin S. Turner served in the House of Representatives from 1871 to 1873, and Mr. Jeremiah Haralson served in the House from 1875 to 1877. I believe it is very fitting that we take time to recognize the lasting impact these individuals had on our area, but more importantly the influence they had on our nation. Both Mr. Turner and Mr. Haralson were born into slavery and not provided a quality education. These men did not let slavery stop them from becoming educated, as both men worked hard to self-educate. After being freed from slavery, Mr. Turner and Mr. Haralson followed different paths to Congress. Mr. Turner became a successful businessman in south Alabama and was elected tax collector and councilman in Dallas County, Alabama. Mr. Haralson worked as a farmer and a minister before being elected to the Alabama State House of Representatives and later the Alabama State Senate. Both men would go on to represent the First Congressional District in Congress as Republicans, the same seat I now hold. Mr. Speaker, these men serve as a great example and an important reminder about our nation's history. These men remind us of the great American ideal that each and every person, regardless of the color of their skin, should have an opportunity to achieve their dreams. Thanks to the dedication and persistence of men like Mr. Turner and Mr. Haralson, today there are 46 black lawmakers serving in the 114th Congress, including the first-ever female, black Republican. So during Black History Month, I encourage all Americans to take time to reflect on the past because looking to the past is the only true way to really understand common humanity. Let us remember the impact of Representatives Turner and Haralson and the countless other African Americans from Southwest Alabama who have made a lasting impact on our cities, states, and country.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker), another freshman Member and a gentleman who brings great experience to his position in this House.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I have been listening carefully to the debate today. We have heard a lot from both sides, but at the end of the day, this is not about anybody in this House; this is about the American people. This is about something that is so very fundamentally important to them--their health care. We took away the health care system that worked for 80 percent of the people of this country to fix a problem that we today know we fix for only 1 percent of the American people. Only 3 million new Americans have gotten on this new health care plan who didn't have health insurance before. That is 1 percent of the American people. We threw out the health care plan that worked for 80 percent of Americans to fix a problem for 1 percent of Americans. Look what it has done. It has wrecked lives. I have here from my office a sampling of emails and letters, which don't include the phone calls from people who came up to me in the over 30 town hall meetings I did last year--women with tears in their eyes because they couldn't pay their health insurance, because they couldn't pay the deductibles when they went to the doctor or the hospital; a man who forwent going to get a particular type of surgery he needed because he couldn't pay the deductible. That is what this law has done to the people of America. It has victimized the people of America. There is no way to fix this law. It is fundamentally flawed. We could go in and fix a problem piecemeal here and find a piecemeal resolution there. We would end up with another Frankenstein. The American people don't want Frankenstein. They don't want Groundhog Day either. They don't want the President to continue to throw stuff at them over and over again that doesn't work. They deserve a health care system that they control with their doctors, picking the health insurance programs that they want, that are not mandated by the Federal Government and that fit into their budgets. It empowers them instead of having their power taken away by some faceless bureaucracy in Washington. Let's repeal this terrible ObamaCare law. Let's put in place a process that will give us a solution, one that works for people and what they really need. Let's get on with the business that we are here to do in order to make lives better for the American people. I thank the majority leader, and I thank the Speaker, and I thank the whip for bringing this bill to the floor. I thank them for allowing my bill to be the one to be the package that we use today, and I ask all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), another new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee and new Member of this body.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop), another new Member of this body and another new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, who brings a unique experience to this body.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a new member of the Education and the Workforce Committee and a new Member of this body.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip of this House, who has not just traveled around his district talking to people harmed by this law but has traveled around the United States of America.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 596. By now, we have heard all the stories. From canceled plans to higher deductibles to longer wait times at your doctor, ObamaCare is full of broken promises. Everywhere I go in southwest Alabama, I hear a different story about how this law is having a negative impact on families, small businesses, doctors, and hospitals. The problems aren't just in Alabama. Nationwide studies show that under ObamaCare, individual premiums have gone up by an average of 49 percent and deductibles have skyrocketed for the average American family to the point where many people can't afford to pay their deductibles. How is that affordable? Even worse, only 7 percent of Americans believe that this health care law will reduce their health care costs. Seven percent--that is astonishing. I don't believe ObamaCare can be fixed through piecemeal reforms. I think the only way to truly get rid of this harmful law is to repeal ObamaCare in its entirety. For the first time, Republicans now have control of the Senate, and Senate Democrats can no longer stand in the way of having this legislation brought up for a vote. This also marks the first full repeal vote since the law has been in implementation. Right now, American families are sitting around their kitchen table to do their taxes and realizing yet another area where this law has caused a confusing maze of requirements that must be properly navigated in order to avoid government penalties. And we have been told that millions of Americans will have to pay penalties. We were told we would like the law once we found out what was in it. The opposite has proven to be true. We were told that we could keep our health care plans and keep our family physicians. That is also not true. The more we learn about this law, the less it makes sense. Today's vote is not just about getting rid of ObamaCare, it is about charting an appropriate path forward. My legislation instructs the appropriate House committees to move forward with alternative solutions to improve our health care system based on patient-centered reforms that aren't run by the Federal Government. I look forward to being a part of that process. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to champion this legislation on behalf of families in southwest Alabama and all across America who have been negatively impacted by this law, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 596. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), a new Member of the House, who is himself a dentist.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a colleague of ours and a distinguished veteran.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), another freshman in this House.

Mr. BYRNE. I am, and I reserve the balance of my time for closing.