Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight an important occasion, the creation of the modern-day United States Coast Guard (USCG). The important designation was made official by President Woodrow Wilson on January 28, 1915, when he signed into law the ``Act to Create the Coast Guard,'' merging the Revenue Cutter Service with the U.S. Life-Saving Service. The origins of the present-day Coast Guard can be traced back to August 4, 1790, when President George Washington signed the Tariff Act to empower ten United States ships to enforce trade laws and reduce smuggling. The USCG is one of the oldest organizations of the federal government and was the only armed force patrolling the seas until the Navy Department was established in 1798. Over its long and storied history, the USCG has acquired various responsibilities from maintaining the country's tools for maritime navigation to handling merchant marine licensing and merchant vessel safety. Additionally, the USCG is the nation's frontline of defense from threats at sea and is dedicated to saving lives, one of its most important functions. Mr. Speaker, I come from an area that truly understands the important work the Coast Guard does on a daily basis. Mobile, Alabama, located in my Congressional district, is home to the Guard Aviation Training Center and also the USCG Sector Mobile Base. The Aviation Center acts as the Coast Guard's aviation and capabilities development center and also conducts traditional Coast Guard air station missions including search and rescue, homeland security, and environmental protection. I am proud of all the brave men and women who serve in this essential organization, and I encourage all Americans to take some time to reflect on the sacrifices these people have made for our great country.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. I thank my colleague, the gentleman, and I thank you for the time, but I thank you most of all for your service to the people of your community and what you have done for them and your proxy for hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers that do that day in and day out, and we take them for granted. I am glad you brought up the subject of families because we sometimes forget that these law enforcement officers have families. They have husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, and friends. Literally, when they go out every day, those people and their family and their friends are not certain they will come back. How many of us, when we go off to work, our family and friends think, ``Well, he may not come back''? What a terrible thing that must be, how difficult that is for the family. My grandfather was a sheriff in Mobile County in Alabama in the twenties and thirties. I wasn't alive during that point in time, but I remember my father telling stories about that. When his father would go out at night and they had to do things on patrol or to go out and apprehend somebody who committed a crime and how upset it would leave him as a child thinking: Where is my dad going? Is he going to be okay? We take that for granted, but the families don't take that for granted because they have to live with it day in and day out. We so often think of law enforcement officers in terms of how they relate to a criminal. Well, oftentimes, the most important person or persons they are relating with are victims. They are the protectors--in some cases, the saviors--of victims, people who are getting ready to be hurt by a criminal, and--but for a law enforcement officer--they would be hurt and maybe even killed. Those law enforcement officers rush into an inherently dangerous situation to keep those people from harm and maybe even save them from death. It may be a phone call that goes to 911 in the dead of night, a woman screaming into the phone: My husband has a gun, and he is going to use it against me. A law enforcement officer is dispensed to that environment, not knowing in that highly emotionally charged moment whether that gun is going to be used on him or the person he has come to save. Mr. Speaker, time and time again, law enforcement officers find a way to defuse that situation. No one is hurt, the person that is about to commit a crime is apprehended and charged with a crime less than actually hurting somebody, but a person has been saved; a person has been saved from harm or perhaps death. If you have ever been in that moment and been someone who has been a victim, when a law enforcement officer comes up and saves you in that moment, you realize that but for those law enforcement officers who do that day in and day out, we could all be victims of a horrible crime, and we take that for granted. My wife, Rebecca, and I were victims of a violent crime. We were stopped one night by three young men who tried to rob us. They had a knife and said they had a gun. My wife was pregnant. They took our jewelry and then threw her to the ground which could have not only hurt her, but hurt the baby. Fortunately, some of the people involved with the main perpetrator realized it was time to run, and as they did, we could scream out. As we screamed out, neighbors called the police. They came very quickly. I can tell you when you are in that moment and you feel that sense of fear because people have weapons that they want to use against you and they have already used physical violence against you, when that squad car comes up and the man or men or women in uniform step out, you feel safe. When they step out of that squad car, they are not safe because they have to go out. Their official duty is to try to apprehend that person and do whatever it takes to protect the rest of us. We take that for granted, and we should never, ever take that for granted. Mr. Speaker, last year, over 100 law enforcement officers in the United States lost their lives in the line of duty. So far in this young year in the United States already, nine law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. One of them was lost last night in my home county, Baldwin County, Alabama, a police officer--a fine police officer--with the city of Loxley, and we take that for granted. He got in his car at the beginning of the day, kissed his wife, went to work, and didn't come home. Mr. Speaker, I hope we in America can use times like this to remember what we gain from people who put on the uniform of law enforcement to serve us and to protect us. ``Serve and protect,'' that is the motto. All of us tonight, millions of us as Americans tonight will go to bed, will put our heads on that pillow, and will go to sleep safe, knowing that these men and women are patrolling the streets of our country to keep danger away from us. Before we go to sleep every night, perhaps we should do one more thing: let's say a little prayer for those men and women who patrol the streets of our country to protect all of us and maintain the quality of life that we all too often take for granted. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this time tonight, your service to your community and to our country, and hope you will continue to remind us in the days to come of what we owe to the men and women that wear law enforcement uniforms throughout America.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BYRNE. That is an important point because when you look at education, there are different parts of it. Each part serves its own special need. The 4-year colleges are different from the 2-year colleges, and they are different from high schools, et cetera. So there is a role that each of them play, but sometimes we start fuzzing them together and we miss the importance of each one of them. I think there will be some negative effects on 4-year colleges. I already heard from some 4-year college people about that. They don't want to pick on the 2-year colleges because they don't want to be seen to do that, but they understand there could be some negative effects. But the point you and the gentleman from Florida were making that is even more important to this, these are mainly local and State decisions. The Federal Government is inserting itself in things that traditionally, under our Federal understanding of government, the Federal Government didn't get involved in. I talked to our colleagues in this House from the State of Tennessee, Democrat and Republican, and said, What do you think about us taking your Tennessee plan and nationalizing it? They said, We think it's a bad idea. We are proud of our Tennessee plan. We think it's a good plan. We're proud that our State is doing it. It is one thing to talk about it from a State level--I understand they have one in Chicago at the local level--but it is different when you blow it up to be a national thing. So the President wants to take this good idea from a single State or a single city and blow it up into a national thing, and we are not really stoked here to do that. We don't really understand how to do that. Here is what happens now: we send the money out. And what happens after we send the money? Rules and regulations and mandates come flowing down after it, and Washington starts telling Tennessee and Illinois and Florida and Alabama how to run our colleges. And that, my friends, is a very bad idea. I don't think anybody in higher education wants the heavy hand of the Federal Government telling us how to run our institutions of higher education. Let me end on this one point. America is known as having the best institutions of higher education in the world. And the reason we do is because each one of our institutions is different from one another. They specialize in who they are and they focus on quality. And if we start robbing that from them by trying to stamp some one-size-fits-all concept of higher education, which the President is trying to do right now with this rating system he wants to put on higher education, then we may start losing in an area in which we are the preeminent leader in the world. And I don't think the people of Alabama sent me here to let the Federal Government do that to the fine institutions of higher education we have in the State of Alabama.

Mr. BYRNE. I thank the gentlemen from Florida and Illinois. Those were eloquent words spoken from the heart, because I know both of these gentleman mean everything they just said. Last night was an interesting moment for me. One of the President's big plays is this proposal regarding community colleges. Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I am the first person in my family to go to college. Both of my parents grew up during the Depression. There wasn't any money for college, but I was privileged to go to college. During the time that I went, my parents were not doing well financially. Like very many other people, I was a financial aid student. We didn't have Pell grants back then. You got Federal student loans and maybe a Federal student work-study job. Lots and lots of people in my generation did that. I don't ever complain about that because that is the best money I ever borrowed and the best work I ever did because it gave me the opportunity to do what I have done in life. But it also taught me how important it is to give people an opportunity for a real education so that they can move up in their lives. This May, the last of my four children will finish college. We have had somebody in college in my family since 2003. I have been writing those tuition checks, fees, et cetera. So I look at this also from the point of view of someone who has had to be there writing those checks, sending their young people to college. But I am also the former chancellor of post-secondary education for the State of Alabama. It was my job to be the CEO of Alabama's 2-year college system, the community colleges for the State of Alabama. And so I bring a certain level of experience and expertise to this issue that may be a little different from others in this body. When the President first proposed this, his office just gave us a heads up. It didn't check and say, Do you think this is a good idea? Given your background, do you think this is something we can do? He said, This is what we're going to do. Our first question we asked was, How much will it cost? The initial answer we got from the White House was, We don't know how much it's going to cost. Now that should cause us all to ask a question about how serious this proposal is when, in the very first instance that they decide that they are going to propose it, they can't even tell us how much it costs. Even after they decided how much they think it is going to cost--$60 billion--they couldn't tell us how they were going to pay for it. So it led me to ask this question: Is this a serious idea? Because, you see, over a third of our community college students in America are already on Federal Pell grants, which cover all--or virtually all--of their tuition and fee costs when they go to community college. And for the people that don't have the eligibility to get Pell grants, there are a combination of other things that they can get. My experience as somebody who ran a community college system was that covering tuition and fees was usually not the real problem most community college students face. Most of them face a more difficult problem, and that is they are not adequately academically prepared or they have other problems in their lives, whether it is from their homes or jobs or whatever. It is hard for them to stay in college and stay up with the work that they have got to do. And so they need a lot of extra help. And the President doesn't talk about that. Now here is the worst thing about this proposal. We heard a lot last night from the President of the United States that he was all about the middle class. Let me tell you one of the taxes that he is going to raise that is going to pay for these proposals. He is going to tax 529 plans. For people that don't know what those are, 529 plans are savings accounts, essentially, that moms and dads and grandmoms and granddads put money in over time and they use that money that they saved over time to put their young people through college. And the good thing about that is while they pay taxes on the money that they make before they put it into the plans, if, when they take the money out of those plans, there has been some appreciation--it has gone from being this much money to that much money--they don't have to pay taxes on it. It is an incentive for them. It is a way for middle class people to save for college for their young people. It is the only way middle class people in this country have a real savings plan for the young people. And this President, who stood up right behind me last night and talked about being for the middle class, wants to tax those middle class savings plans and take them away from people. Twelve million people use those plans in this country, 12 million people like my parents, like my wife and me, and like many, many other people in America. They shouldn't have their plans taxed. So I say to my colleagues from Florida and Illinois, if you look at just that one part of what he proposed, it is hard to say he was serious. Because if he really cares about higher education in America, he would think about the other needs of these community college students. But most importantly, he would think about those 12 million parents that are saving for their young people, middle class people whom he is trying to take money away from with this proposed tax. I think that sort of gives you a flavor of my appreciation of that one part of what he said last night.

Mr. BYRNE. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and I look at border security as national security. Let me give you a story from a trip that several of us on the Armed Services Committee took to the Middle East back in August and September. We visited several countries over there. As you know, it is a very dangerous part of the world, clearly. One of the countries we went to is Morocco. Morocco, if you think about where it is, should have lots of problems, but you don't really hear much about Morocco having terrorist incidents. When we were over there, we asked a lot of questions. How is that so? It is because they take their border security very seriously. They use a lot of the military aid that America provides to Morocco for their border security, and they keep the bad guys out, and so you don't hear in this country that is in some of the most troubled parts of the world, you don't hear about the problems there because they control their borders. They understand that their internal and national security is dependent upon that. We had two brothers, the Tsarnaev brothers, who grew up in Boston. One of them was allowed to go back to where they were from and one of the satellite countries from Russia--obviously was trained by terrorists. We allowed him to come back into this country, after we were warned by the Russians where he had gone, and he and his brother tragically ignited those bombs at the Boston Marathon, seriously wounding a lot of people and killing some. Well, what sort of a security situation do we have that we allowed him back into this country? What sort of security situation do we have today? This is not just about the southern border; it is about the northern border. It is about our security of the entire Nation, and if we will start looking at border security as national security, which is the way we on this side of the aisle understand this issue, then we can protect the American people. It definitely does take us working with the President because he runs the Department of Homeland Security through his appointee to that Secretary's position, and it is his policies through that Department that determine whether or not we are going to be protected, and protecting our borders is a part of protecting Americans from international terrorism, including international Islamic terrorism.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. I thank the gentlewoman, both for your time and for your leadership on this very important issue. As she said, I represent Mobile, Alabama. If you go and look at a map, it is a straight shot north from Havana to Mobile. For over three centuries, Mobile has been a major port for the export of goods and import of goods back and forth between Cuba and the United States. It is in the economic best interest of the people in my district for us to get to the point where we have normalized relations and trade with Cuba. I should be ardently in favor of this deal that the President is pursuing, but I am not. This is not the time, these are not the circumstances, and--to put it simply--this is not the way to do this. Let me address the way for a moment. It has been alluded to previously that we have done deals with China and with Vietnam. In both cases, the Presidents involved worked with Congress. That is critically important to whatever success they have had in both of those deals. In this circumstance, the President has refused to work with Congress. You can't reach the sort of agreement that he is looking for without Congress. You can't have an embassy unless we are willing to pay for it. You can't have an ambassador unless the Senate approves the ambassador. He is pursuing what, in essence, is an errand that cannot result in success that he is looking for, but he is pursuing it anyway without us because this is just another example of these efforts to make these unilateral, executive-type decisions, leaving Congress to decide to try to keep itself relevant as he becomes a lameduck President. That is no way to do this. Let me address the circumstances. I can't say it any better than the prior speakers have said it. This is a brutally oppressive regime that cannot change, and until they change, until they put in motion the things that we are talking about for change, I don't see how a country like the United States can seriously engage in negotiations with them. Most importantly, for me, from my perspective, I serve on the House Armed Services Committee--I don't think I have to tell everybody here the history of this country--this country with this regime in charge allowed the then-Soviet Union to put nuclear missiles aimed at the United States on their soil. They have never apologized for that; they have never renounced that. As we heard earlier, just a year ago, they were caught redhanded in an arms deal with the North Koreans, who are presently enemies of the United States. What sort of assurance do we have as part of this deal that Cuba is not going to be a staging ground for military activity, terrorist activity, against the people and the security of the United States of America? Nothing, nothing; yet we engaged in this deal, a very bad deal from my perspective--and I don't want to take anything away from the American citizen who we were able to bring back home--but look who we traded in return for that. It reminds me of the Bergdahl deal we had last year that was so very controversial. This administration doesn't know how to make a good deal. They know how to give everything away and get very little back. I want to normalize relationships with Cuba. I want us to open up that trade again because it is going to benefit my district. I am willing to do anything I can to help make that happen, but this country should never give in to people like the Castro brothers until there is a change in that regime, until there is a change in the Government of Cuba, until they renounce their activities that have been against the security of the United States, until we know that we have a good faith trading partner and a good faith partner, period, in this hemisphere. I look forward to the day when I can stand at the Port of Mobile and welcome goods coming in from Cuba and goods going out from Mobile to Cuba as part of a deal that is made in the right way, under the right circumstances, for the right reason. I hope and pray that that day comes, but that day is not today. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. I look forward to continuing to follow that leadership in the days to come.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, just last month, we made a promise to the American people. We promised our constituents that we would fight the Obama administration's decision to give executive amnesty to many of those in this country illegally. I am pleased to announce that this week the House will fulfill that promise and act to defund the illegal executive action. All last year, we strongly urged the President not to act alone, and the American people spoke clearly in last November's election, but the President forged ahead anyway. Now, in order to preserve our Nation's longstanding system of checks and balances to preserve the very order of our Constitution, the House will act to rein in President Obama's plans for executive amnesty. We will vote on legislation, which I was proud to cosponsor, written by my Alabama colleague, Congressman Robert Aderholt, which would prevent the President from carrying out his plans for executive amnesty. Let me be clear: this is tough legislation which completely eliminates all funds for implementation of the President's illegal actions. The bill has the support of many leading voices in the immigration debate including my home State Senator, Jeff Sessions. Just as important, the legislation makes clear that no Federal benefits can be granted to any alien as a result of the policies defunded and also eliminates funds to consider new, renewal, or previously-denied applications for executive amnesty. The legislation doesn't just defund the President's executive action. The legislation paves the way for stronger border security by increasing funds for border agents, detention beds, and enforcement activities. In order to halt illegal immigration in this country, we must stop encouraging illegal immigration by offering amnesty and instead put more attention on actually securing our borders. I wish this legislation wasn't necessary. I wish President Obama had listened to the American people and enforced our current laws instead of continuing his my-way-or-the-highway style of governing; instead, he moved ahead with action that clearly violates our Constitution and has poisoned the well for serious conversation on immigration reform. Madam Speaker, I must ask a simple question that has very serious consequences: When will it stop? When will President Obama stop issuing shortsighted executive action and instead work together with this Congress to find long-term solutions to the real issues plaguing our country? I fear that the answer to that question is not promising, given that while we were on this floor taking our oath of office, the White House was busy issuing veto threats. I understand that the legislative process may not be convenient for the President, but the process exists for a reason. The Congress makes the laws, and the President should enforce them. This President just doesn't get that. This week, the House will act to rein in the President once again. We will attempt to right the scales of power and restore our constitutional system of checks and balances. We cannot and we will not sit back idly and allow the President to act alone. We promised the American people we would respond, and this week, we will hold true to our word.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for scheduling this Special Order to honor the men and women who put their lives on the line every day, as we just heard from our colleague from Washington. Last year in the United States of America, 119 law enforcement officers lost their lives in the line of duty; 119 lives snuffed out. It was not because they did anything wrong, but they were performing their duty to protect you and me so that every night when we go to sleep, we put our heads on our pillows and sleep soundly. We take it for granted. There is something about it that we think is just natural. There is nothing natural about someone who goes out every day and consciously gives of themselves and puts their life on the line for someone else. Jesus said there is no greater love than this, than someone who would lay down his life for his brother. And law enforcement officers do that every day. Yet sometimes when we get these incidents in America, we somehow forget that. We forget that they have husbands and wives and children and parents and sisters and brothers and friends, that they are people, too. They are citizens in our community, just like we are, and they go out every day to protect you and me and give us a quality of life that, as I say, we take for granted. So it is altogether fitting that we would take today and recognize them, salute them, recognize them, honor them, thank them for what they do for all of us. I hope that we won't just do it for today. I hope we do it 365 days a year, because they are here for us 365 days a year. So on behalf of my constituents in the First Congressional District of Alabama, I say to law enforcement officials in my district and throughout America: We thank you. We salute you. God bless you.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. ``No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and controul of the Congress. ``No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.''

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, in Mobile's Cooper Riverside Park, there stands a statue of Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville, the French founder of Mobile, a statue which is identical to another statue located in Havana, Cuba. This statue is just one example of the robust ties between the city of Mobile, located in my Congressional district, and Cuba. These ties go all the way back to Spanish colonization in the 18th century. It is safe to say that I represent a district that stands to benefit from improved relationships with Cuba. In fact, the Port of Mobile is a straight shot to Cuba and could be an important economic hub, just as it was going back to the 18th century. Under the right circumstances, I would gladly support lifting the trade embargo with Cuba and improving diplomatic relations. Unfortunately, now is not that time. The economic benefits should not come at the cost of enabling a ruthless regime that is unwilling to change. Once again, the President seems to be more interested in a publicity stunt than in a substantive solution. The White House will tell you that this action is no different from previous efforts to improve relations with other communist countries like Vietnam or China. Here is the problem with that premise. In each of those cases, the President engaged with Congress in a serious conversation and debate about the best path forward. A plan was developed, serious concessions were agreed to, and each nation mutually benefited from these meaningful actions. Unfortunately, in the case of Cuba, President Obama has again decided to cut Congress out of the process and act alone with no real plan to accomplish his stated goal. This approach is the wrong way for our government to operate, and it has once again resulted in a bad deal. Columnist Charles Krauthammer put it best when he said: Do you know how to achieve a breakthrough in tough negotiations? Give everything away. Mr. Speaker, I can't help but ask what reforms Cuba will make as a result of this deal. Let's not forget that this is the same Cuba, under the same regime, who during the cold war had nuclear missiles on their soil aimed at the United States of America. This is the same Cuba that refuses to let the church operate freely. This is the same Cuba that worked with Venezuela and North Korea against the interests of the United States. This is the same Cuba that has been accused again and again of egregious human rights violations. Nothing has changed in those areas at all, and the Castro brothers are still in power. Now, there is a path forward for improved diplomatic relations and ending the trade embargo. The Castro regime must go. Political activity must be legalized. Public commitments to free and fair elections must be made. An independent judiciary must be established. Rights to free speech and freedom of the press must be guaranteed. Cuba must renounce the policy of being a staging area against the United States. Political prisoners must be freed, and the Cuban citizens must be treated with respect and dignity and be provided with the basic freedoms we often take for granted here in the U.S. Under those conditions and with a President willing to work with Congress, the embargo could be lifted and progress could truly begin. Mr. Speaker, I find myself once again coming to this floor to implore President Obama to abandon his ill-conceived, independent executive action and, instead, come to the Capitol, work with this Congress, share ideas, and collaborate; and together, we can make a real, positive impact on behalf of the American people.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership on this very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. In fact, just this morning I was reading your op-ed from USA Today in which you make a great point. This law cannot be fixed. It is beyond repair. No quick legislative fix can fix this law and make it work for the countless American families who have already been negatively impacted, including people in my district. Last November, the American people spoke loud and clear. They want to see bold legislative action that pushes back against the failed policies of this President. I support this bill, but I want to do more, and we must do more. I look forward to working with the chairman and leadership of this House to move forward with the full repeal of this law. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record the position statement favoring this bill from the National Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small business of America. National Federation of Independent Business, Washington, DC, January 6, 2015. Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act of 2015. H.R. 30 will be considered an NFIB Key Vote for the 114th Congress. This legislation would replace the new 30-hour per week full-time or full-time equivalent (FTE) employee definition created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) with a 40-hour per week definition. The ACA defines full-time employee for the purpose of the employer mandate as an employee who works an average of 30-hours per week (130- hours per month). The employer mandate is a requirement that businesses with 100 or more full-time or FTE employees offer qualified, ``affordable'' health insurance to 70 percent of full-time employees or pay costly penalties beginning in 2015. In 2016, businesses with 50 or more full-time or FTE employees must offer qualified, ``affordable'' health insurance to 95 percent of full-time employees and their dependents or pay costly penalties. In early 2013, NFIB testified before the House Committee on Small Business that the new definition is ``one of the most dangerous parts in the law.'' The ACA marks the first time that ``full-time'' is expressly defined in federal law. Prior to the ACA's enactment, the determination was left up to the employer.\1\ Similarly, the Fair Labor Standards Act has long dictated that overtime pay starts after 40-hours per week.\2\ Thus, employers and employees have long understood ``full-time'' to be equivalent to 40- hours per week. The 30-hour full-time definition is already resulting in less opportunities, fewer hours and lower incomes for employees. Small businesses are already being forced to shrink their workforce below and restricting workforce growth above the 50 FTE employee threshold in preparation for the costly mandate. H.R. 30 would provide some immediate relief for small- business owners and employees. The bill would reduce taxes on employers by tens of billions of dollars. For employees, the bill would prevent decreases in take home pay. NFIB supports H.R. 30 and will consider it an NFIB Key Vote for the 114th Congress. We look forward to working with you to protect small business as the 114th Congress moves forward. Sincerely, Amanda Austin, Vice President, Public Policy. endnotes 1 http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/workhours/full-time.htm 2 http://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime_payt .htm

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask for a moment that my colleagues imagine a situation. Imagine a few years down the road that a Republican President announces he has instructed the Justice Department to no longer enforce the Clean Air Act, that he has told the Justice Department to no longer prosecute violations of the Clean Air Act. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rise up with frustration and indignation. They would say the President has failed to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress, as he has been constitutionally required to do, and they would be right to do so. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is happening in our country today. President Obama has chosen unilaterally not to enforce our Nation's longstanding immigration laws. He has made this decision without any consultation with Congress and entirely on his own. Think for a moment about the precedent this action sets: that a President can alter longstanding law simply through an executive memo and his words, a President can simply say that he is not going to enforce the law. That would be frightening to all Americans, regardless of political belief. Let's be clear what this action is not. It is not prosecutorial discretion. No one doubts that the President has prosecutorial discretion. But this goes far beyond that power and enters into new territory that, frankly, has never before been touched. I believe this issue was settled long ago, before our country was even founded. You see, in the 17th century in Britain, during this big fight between the King of England and Parliament, the King said that he had prerogative powers, the ability to override Parliament. And there were battles. There were wars in Britain about how this was going to be settled. And the Parliament determined, in consultation with the courts, that the King couldn't, on his own, do that, that he couldn't just simply say, I am going to dispense with the laws or suspend their operations for a period of time. Our Founding Fathers knew this history well, and when they put together the Constitution of our country, in article II, they had that in their minds when they gave to the President the obligation--not the option--to faithfully execute the laws, all the laws of the United States, regardless of whether the President agrees with those laws or not. I would say that this type of executive action is clearly not what the Founders had in mind when they drafted our Constitution. The main overriding goal of our forefathers was to prevent the executive from becoming too powerful, and they went to great efforts to ensure a strong system of checks and balances. President Obama's executive action runs in the face of how our government was designed to operate. Let's also remember that earlier this year, President Obama said his policies--all of them--would be on the ballot in the mid-term elections. And the American people went to the polls and soundly rejected the President's policies. They made clear they were not supportive of more unilateral executive action. They wanted us to work together. As a Congress, we warned the President not to go forward with this executive action. Mr. Speaker, we need a solution to our Nation's immigration problem, but by using executive action, the President has made finding common ground far more difficult. Mr. Speaker, I believe this House should rise above the actions of the President, and early next year, we should send the President real border security legislation, much like the border security legislation we passed in this House this past summer, yet the Senate wouldn't even take up. This House should pass legislation to update and fix the worker visa program. This House should pass legislation to put in place E-Verify for all employers. This House should pass legislation to tighten internal security. Then, and only then, when we go through all of those pieces of legislation, should we even begin to discuss what we are going to do about the millions of people who are in this country illegally. You see, Mr. Speaker, the more the President acts outside the bounds of his powers, the harder it becomes to actually achieve a solution. It leads me to wonder: Does President Obama actually want a long-term, lasting solution to immigration? His actions imply otherwise. Mr. Speaker, I ask the President to rethink his approach to the immigration debate. I urge him to abandon this ill-conceived executive action and, instead, to come to the table and work with the Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and both Houses to find together the commonsense solutions that we need to find for these problems. We are capable of doing that. That is how our Founders intended our government to operate, and anything other than that is a disservice to the American people.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. There is no greater responsibility of the Federal Government than to provide for our national defense. This bill does that. I am particularly pleased this bill appropriately provides for our Nation's Navy, including full funding for three littoral combat ships, which is consistent with the Navy's request. I truly believe the LCS is a critical component of the future fleet. I also want to join my colleagues in thanking Chairman McKeon for his dedicated service to our men and women in uniform and for your great leadership on the committee. We are losing a true advocate for a strong national defense, and I want you to know that your leadership will be sorely missed, but the rest of us who remain will do all we can to carry on in your tradition. I urge my colleagues to continue a long tradition of bipartisan support for the NDAA, and I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this critical piece of legislation.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, there are some people you encounter in life who are just truly remarkable individuals. The first time I met Alice Lee from Monroe County, Alabama, I could tell she was one of them. As a newly minted lawyer, I had to travel to Monroeville, Alabama, to work on a legal matter with a local lawyer by the name of Alice Lee. Ms. Lee was not just any lawyer though. As one of the few women who practiced law in Alabama before World War II, she was quite a dynamic figure. She was an expert of the law and incredibly gracious to me. When she spoke on matters of the law, people listened. She continued to actively practice law until after her 100th Birthday, making her the oldest practicing attorney in Alabama history. Outside of the courtroom, Alice Lee was very active in the United Methodist Church. In fact, she was the first female to lead the Alabama-West Florida Conference delegation to the church's general conference. She appropriately has an award named in her honor that is presented to other women who have shown a commitment to God and leadership. As the years went by, on occasion I would stop by Monroeville to say hello to Ms. Lee and catch up. She was just the kind of person that you enjoyed being around. Sadly, on November 17, Alice Lee died at the age of 103. No one will ever be able to fill her shoes as a true trailblazer and student of the law. Retired minister Thomas Lane Butts of Monroeville put it best when he said, ``Whenever there was a question in the community that no one could answer, the saying was, `Go ask Miss Alice. Her death is like the closing of a great library.' '' Mr. Speaker, I know I join with countless others throughout Monroeville and the state of Alabama in sharing our condolences with the family of Alice Lee. She will be deeply missed.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Columbia Southern University on the grand opening of their new Center for Continuing Education in Orange Beach, Alabama. Established in 1993 by Dr. Robert Mayes, Columbia Southern University offers individuals with demanding schedules a way to achieve their dreams of higher education through online learning. By 2001, Columbia Southern was granted accreditation through the Distance Education and Training Council. Columbia Southern went on to become one of the first United States universities to offer a degree program in Vietnam. After Dr. Mayes' death in 2005, his son, Robert Mayes, Jr., was appointed President. Robert built on his father's success and continued to expand Columbia Southern's footprint. Mr. Speaker, the new Columbia Southern Education Group Center for Continuing Education will include staff offices, meeting rooms and a large training area that can be partitioned off to accommodate a variety of training needs. The 10,600 square foot facility will also serve as the regional training center for the Alabama Fire College and Personnel Standards Commission. I am proud of the work Columbia Southern does to promote higher learning, and I take pride in knowing they are located in the heart of the First Congressional District. I know I join with many others in saying congratulations on the new facility, and we look forward to continued growth and success.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a loyal community servant, Grove Hill Mayor Levon Hicks. Sadly, Mayor Hicks passed away on November 14 after an extended illness. He devoted his life to serving his family, his church, and his community. He was a dedicated member of Jackson Church of Christ for more than 50 years, serving as an elder and attending several mission trips over the years. He served two terms on the Grove Hill Town Council before becoming mayor. He also served around 40 years as a volunteer fireman and was an active member of the Lions Club. He worked tirelessly for the betterment of the Grove Hill community and enjoyed fishing, traveling, and the University of Alabama football. Mr. Speaker, to Mayor Hicks' wife, Helen, and his children and grandchildren, we say thank you for sharing Levon with us. We will miss him greatly.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two outstanding English professors for their innovative contributions toward promoting tourism through literature. First, Professor Mary S. Palmer's short story ``Raisin' Cain'' recently won the Southeastern Literary Tourism Initiative Tourism Writing Contest Award. Professor Palmer's story highlighted the family-friendly nature of Mobile's Mardi Gras and was published online at the Southeastern Literary Tourism Initiative's website. The story includes photos and tourism links at the end so readers can learn how to visit the real Mardi Gras parades and other nearby Mobile attractions included in the inspiring story. I also want to recognize Dr. Sue Walker who currently teaches tourism writing to several of her English classes at the University of South Alabama in Mobile, Alabama. Dr. Walker is using the examples of tourism writing from this initiative to challenge her students to compose original short works of literature that encourage their readers to visit the actual places included in the stories. Mr. Speaker, on Alabama's Gulf Coast, we know just how important tourism is to our local economies. I proudly support any effort to encourage tourism in our region, and I especially applaud innovative methods in the classroom, like tourism writing. Professor Palmer and Dr. Walker have found a unique way to highlight the heritage and culture of South Alabama while providing an enriching experience for their students. I hope my colleagues in the House will invite their state's writers and teachers to take a look at what is going on in Mobile and consider ways to incorporate these types of college courses into their curriculum, and in turn, highlight their state's unique tourism attractions. I will be honored to present Professor Palmer with the 2014 SELTI Tourism Fiction Award on October 15 at the Mobile Carnival Museum, and I am excited to highlight these types of innovative teaching methods.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding and for his continued leadership on this issue of grave importance to our Nation. I support the chairman's amendment because I believe we must do everything we can to defeat this vile enemy known as ISIL. Time is of the essence here. With each passing day, ISIL continues to get stronger. The President has finally asked for a very limited authorization, not of force, but for training and supplying. Based upon the information that I have received, I believe that arming and training Syrian rebels is an important first step. Just a few weeks ago, I joined Chairman McKeon and a few other colleagues on a trip to the Middle East. While there, we met with numerous foreign leaders and defense officials. One thing became very clear: there is regional interest and support for defeating ISIL, but they are waiting on our leadership. I believe arming and training the Syrian rebels to be a necessary step, but I do not believe it alone will be sufficient. Just this morning, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, expressed more action will likely be needed. Our enemy should not just be degraded or contained. Our enemy must be defeated. In order to accomplish that objective, more action will be needed, including overt help from Sunni Muslims in the region and air attacks from the United States. It is also important to note the safeguards Chairman McKeon has written into this amendment. This amendment requires that each fighter be thoroughly vetted by the Department of Defense and that regular progress reports be provided to Congress. I firmly believe that a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force is needed to specifically address ISIL and new action in Syria. The current AUMFs from 2001 and 2002 are simply not applicable to this conflict, and I hope the President will recognize the article I, section 8 powers of this Congress, which are exclusive, and ask us for a new AUMF. That is why this resolution explicitly states that it does not give President Obama authority to send new U.S. forces into combat in Syria. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of my dear friend Judge Michael McMaken, a long-time district judge from Mobile County and a true servant leader. Judge McMaken was born in Oklahoma in 1947. The son of an Army officer, he grew up on various Army posts around the world. He attended college at Purdue University in Indiana and later received his master of business administration and his law degree from my alma mater, the law school at the University of Alabama. A true outdoorsman who enjoyed hunting, fishing, scuba diving, and almost any sport, Judge McMaken always wanted to live on Alabama's gulf coast. He got that chance when he moved to Mobile to serve as an assistant district attorney for then Mobile district attorney and now presiding circuit judge Charlie Graddick. While working in the DA's office, he taught criminal justice at the University of South Alabama. He eventually went on to private practice until being encouraged by many people, including me, to run for district judge in 1986. After winning his first election, Judge McMaken would go on to serve as a district judge in Mobile County for 25 years. He was instrumental in the creation of the Mobile County Drug Court, which helps give those struggling with drug addiction opportunities to beat their addiction and better themselves. That drug program became a model for other counties in Alabama and across the southeastern part of the United States. Outside of the courtroom, Judge McMaken was a forceful advocate for civic responsibility. He was a founding member and first president of the board of directors for the Mobile Child Advocacy Center, which helps children who have been preyed upon by people who would do them harm. He also served as a president of the board of directors of Goodwill, Easter Seals, and AltaPointe Health Systems. He was actively involved with the Boy Scouts program in Alabama and a member of the Governor's Drug Advisory Council. Judge McMaken retired from the bench in 2012 but remained very active in our community. In the late 1980s, around the same time he and his wife were expecting their first child, Judge McMaken was diagnosed with leukemia. He fought this dreadful disease for over 25 years, never relenting in his crusade for justice or his public service. He never let the disease beat him down. Sadly, on September 7, Judge McMaken finally succumbed to the disease. Mike is survived by his loving wife, Kathy, and two wonderful children, Michelle and Bren, in addition to a number of cousins and many, many close friends. Madam Speaker, I believe Mobile County Circuit Judge Ben Brooks said it best. He said, ``The older I get, the more I know how rare it is to meet someone like Mike.'' I couldn't agree more. What matters most is not what you take with you when you leave this world but, rather, what you leave behind. Judge McMaken left behind a legacy of compassion, justice, community service, and civic responsibility. The city of Mobile, Mobile County, and the entire State of Alabama will be forever grateful for the life and the service of Judge McMaken and for his remarkable career throughout our community. We extend our greatest condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight an important occasion, National Constitution Week. The important designation was made official by President Dwight Eisenhower on August 2, 1956 at the urging of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Constitution Week is celebrated every year during the week of September 17-23. The week-long celebration commemorates America's most important and oldest living document. It has grown and evolved slightly over the years, but the Constitution has always been a symbol of freedom for the United States, as well as people around the world. I am especially proud of the work 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. Constitution Week not only celebrates this iconic document, but also encourages citizens to take the time to read and learn about the document and reflect on what values it embodies as a primary symbol of freedom and patriotism. This week encourages reflection and celebrates our founding document which means so much to the history of the United States. As the Daughters of the American Revolution have stated, the purpose of this celebration is to emphasize citizens' responsibilities for protecting and defending the Constitution, inform people that the Constitution is the basis for America's great heritage, and encourage the study of the historical events which led to the framing of the Constitution in September 1787. Mr. Speaker, we are, and have been from our birth, a nation that guarantees our citizens' very basic rights. And our government, as its very core function, is supposed to keep these rights secure. Our government does not create its own powers. Our government only gets its powers from the citizens' consent. That is why our Constitution is so important. So on this Constitution Week, I encourage all Americans to take time to read our nation's Constitution and refresh our minds to the legacy of the document on which our nation's government is rooted.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a great Alabamian and a proud Mobilian, Mr. David Stephen Conrad, or just ``D'' as he was known to his family. Mr. Conrad was born in Boston, Massachusetts on August 30, 1939, but he called Mobile home for the last 49 years. He graduated from the University of Alabama and Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He passed away on September 3, 2014. Mr. Speaker, David loved the law and took great pleasure in his profession. He co-founded the firm of Conrad & Hammond, which is known today as Conrad, Barlar, and McCulloch. He was well-known throughout the legal community as a lawyer possessing the difficult balance of class, respect, and courtesy, while always being the strongest advocate possible for his clients. He was always willing to assist and mentor his fellow lawyers, providing counsel on personal and professional matters wherever requested. He was an active member of his personal and professional communities. He served as past Vice President and board member for the Alzheimer's Association, past member of the Board of Directors of the Springhill Avenue Temple, past member of the Board of Directors of the Mobile Jewish Welfare Association, past Secretary and Vice President of the Mobile Bar Association, past member of the Board of Directors of the Alabama Trial Lawyers Association, member of the Alabama and Mobile Bar Associations, past Regional Board Member for the Southern District of the Commercial Law League of America, past member of the Board of Directors of the Mobile Medical Endowment Fund, past member of the Board of Directors of the Gulf Coast Conservation Association, past member of Ducks Unlimited, and past officer of the Board of Directors for Mobile Big Game Fishing Association. David Conrad always tried to see and find the best in every human. He approached every obstacle he faced with an unwavering positive attitude, the quintessential ``eternal optimist.'' He loved his wife, children, and grandchildren deeply. He always enjoyed spending time with his family at their family house known as ``Camp David.'' David is survived by his wife, Norma, his son, Jeff (Chris) Conrad of Mobile, his daughters, Wendy (Neal) Aronson of Atlanta, Georgia, and Jill (Christopher) Hufnagel of Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is also survived by his 7 grandchildren: Matthew, Will, and Ellie Aronson; Stephen and Sydney Conrad; and Owen and Henry Hufnagel. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my name to the chorus of individuals who were personally touched by David Conrad. I pray that his family and friends will find peace during this difficult time, but that they will find comfort in remembering the good times and great memories they shared with David.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House now for 6 months, and I regrettably rise today to express my frustration, and I know the frustration of thousands of people in my district in southwest Alabama and, I believe, people all over the United States of America. People are tired of the stagnation coming from Washington. Just look at the disapproval rating of this Congress and the disapproval rating of our President. The people of this country want to see action, action on growing our economy, action on cutting spending, action on health care, action on immigration, action on the crisis at the VA, action on foreign policy and all the problems we see around the world that involve our interests. They want to see action. Just earlier this week, I was at the White House for a bill-signing ceremony of the Workforce Investment Act, or the SKILLS Act, as we called it here in the House. The SKILLS Act was a great example of Democrats and Republicans in this House and the Senate coming together behind a common goal of improving our Nation's workforce training programs, which is so important at this time in our recovering economy. During the bill-signing ceremony, the President implored us to send more bipartisan job-creating bills his way. The problem is the President doesn't need to lecture this House on that. The President needs to look no further than the majority leader in the Senate, the gentleman from Nevada. In the House, we have passed nearly 300 bills that are sitting in the Senate, waiting for action--at least 40 of those bills are job-creating bills. We have continued in this House to do the people's work, making our way through seven of the appropriations bills that we are required by the Constitution to pass to fund the government. The Senate has not completed a single one. Now, some may say the issue is that Republican Senators have demanded to have amendments considered. I don't think that is too much to ask. Here in the House, we have considered at least 180 minority amendments to appropriations bills alone, 180. One of my colleagues in the House from the other side of the aisle was quoted in an article as saying that she wanted ``to thank the Republicans for their generosity. I am just grateful for the bipartisanship here.'' That is not the same message coming out of the do-nothing Senate. One Democratic Senator was quoted as saying that he has ``a hard time getting on the train in the morning.'' Former Senate leaders Tom Daschle and Trent Lott have said the Senate ``has degenerated into a polarized mess.'' Now, this probably shouldn't come as much of a surprise because, yet again this year, the Senate failed to even pass a budget. I was just elected this past December. Prior to that, I was in the Alabama State Senate, and in our State, the State of Alabama, as in most States, our legislature is required to pass a budget and appropriations bills every year on time, and they have to be balanced. So every year, the Alabama Legislature passes budgets with appropriations in them on time, and they are balanced. The United States Congress can't do that, the greatest debating body ever known to the world, the United States Senate can't do that? I can't imagine what the people in my district would think if they saw the inaction coming from the United States Senate, but they see the results of it, and it troubles them greatly. We have heard this song and dance before, and most of us now know how it is going to end. At some point--sooner, rather than later--the House will be forced to consider a continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown. The Senate can prevent this by following the House in regular order, doing the people's work, making the hard decisions, and advancing individual appropriations bills, as we have done in the House. That is how government is supposed to work, and that is the only way we are going to be able to make serious reforms to spending programs. I have come to this body a number of times to offer amendments to pending bills that would have cut spending, and I am going to keep pushing for these types of strategic spending reductions, but when the Senate refuses to do its part, it makes this process impossible. The Senate's inaction is going to force those in the House to make an unfair choice, and I ask them to act differently for the people of this country, so we can get things done.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. At this time, with America, we have so many opportunities before us, but we have to make sure that the people in our society, and the people that are coming through some difficult circumstances, have opportunities that didn't exist before. These sorts of innovations provide opportunities for them and for institutions of higher education to figure out where we need to go in the future so that we deliver the product of higher education in the way it needs to be delivered and received by those that can benefit the most. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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