Bradley Byrne

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. My grandparents were from Indiana, and the gentlewoman from Indiana represents her State well, and I have appreciated our relationship. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my farewell speech to this House, and I am going to surprise some people by saying that I rise today with hope and optimism. I know that is unusual because there are people on both sides of the House that want to say this country is in a bad place and heading in the wrong direction. I believe that view ignores two very important things. One is our history, and the other is what I hear the people of America telling us. Several years ago, a number of us from the Senate and the House, both parties, had the privilege of spending an evening at the Library of Congress with the noted American history writer David McCullough. At the end of the evening, the moderator turned to him and said: What parting words do you have for these Members of Congress? And he said: I think if the people of America knew their history better, they would be more hopeful, they would be more optimistic. I have been listening to the people of my district for the last 7 years. When I was listening to them, I had no preconceived notions about what they thought, and, buddy, they told me. And the American people, through elections, have told us, too. And the great thing about our elections is there are no filters. If you go back and look at the history of this country, you will see some notable things. One is that this country was founded by people who believed in principles, in morals, and values that defined who we are. They took a tremendous risk in fighting the most powerful military nation in the world, Great Britain, and they did it after declaring something very important, not just that they were declaring independence, but the reasons for why they were doing it. That Congress was the Second Continental Congress. The First Continental Congress, which met in 1774, is the forerunner to this House, a group of people elected to represent the people of this country. It is a notion as old as the creation of Parliament and the House of Commons of England, something that was their heritage. Now, they took a great risk because they felt they faced a great risk. They had been told when those colonies were founded that they would have the same rights as all English people, and they found after the French and Indian war that that wasn't true, that those rights were going to be taken from them, and they were willing to fight for those rights. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this very clearly. They didn't come into this with clean hands. When the Europeans came to this continent, this was not a new world. This was an old world. There was a civilization already here that had been here for thousands of years. And between our germs, which they had no defense against, and other things worse than that, we essentially took this land from them. In 1619, European slave traders brought the first slave to this country. So when they went into that fight with the British, they didn't have clean hands. But societies are complex things, and because they didn't have clean hands didn't mean they didn't have clean hearts. And they did. They waged an incredible war for 5 years against this great military power and won. And they won because of what they stood on. Go back and look at the Declaration of Independence. One sentence in there really says it all: ``We hold these truths. . . . `' Truths, absolutes, not something you get to change your mind about. ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . . . `' Yes, I know they used the word ``men,'' but the principle of equality was in there. It was in what they were standing on. And they said we were created equal, which means we had a Creator. And they go on in the very next phrase and they say: ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator. . . . `' They were gifted. Endowed means gifted. They were gifted by their Creator, by God himself with certain unalienable rights, rights that can't be taken away from them. And that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that governments are instituted among men to secure those very liberties, `` . . . deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'' We need to reread that sentence over and over again. Government doesn't exist for the politicians. Government exists to secure rights, and the power we have is the power the people give us. Now, I know very well that we had to follow up that desperate war and that declaration by creating a Constitution, the Constitution we are under today. Sadly, it is a Constitution I fear too many people, including too many people in power, don't know much about. Because the purpose of the Constitution was not only to create a government that had enough power to do what needed to be done for the things that are listed in the preamble of the Constitution, it also put limits on that government. And some of us act as if there are no limits on this government. And our Founders knew because they had to fight against a tyrannical central government that there needed to be limits on government. Those same English rights that they had inherited had been secured because people, for hundreds of years, had to fight back against British kings that wanted to take power and use it against the people. People lost their lives. There was great suffering, as there was in our Revolution, because tyrannical central governments don't give their power back easily, they don't give them back without a fight. That fight continued in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted by this House in the very first Congress under the leadership of James Madison, as he said in his speech to the House when he introduced the Bill of Rights, he said, this is all about making sure that we take away from this powerful government we have created any notion that they can trample on certain specific rights, and they laid them out. And in a couple years, all the States necessary ratified those amendments, and they are part of the fundamental law of this country, although sometimes we act like they are not. I have listened, by the way, to some of the debates about what rights we have under the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause is in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it says, Congress can't make any law that establishes a religion or infringes upon the free exercise of that religion; exercise, action. We have a right to freely exercise our religion, and we need to remember that fundamental right along with the others. Now, that was our founding: the Declaration of Independence, the War for Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. That was our founding, not 1619. And we need to remember the principles of our founding, because they are central to who we are as people. Now, over the course of the 19th century, we were invaded by Great Britain, the Capitol Building here was burned, the White House was burned. We could have given up, but we didn't, because that is not who we are. We not only survived, we fought on and built this great country so that by 1860, we not only bordered on the Atlantic Ocean, we bordered on the Pacific Ocean and we bordered on the Rio Grande. We grew by leaps and bounds. Then in 1861, we entered another tragedy, because the people that put that Constitution together failed in at least one critical regard: they failed to address the issue of slavery, and we fought a terrible Civil War that cost the lives of 600,000 Americans to solve a problem that should have been solved in 1787. Despite that war, we came back, we ended slavery, we adopted the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment, and we grew as a Nation throughout the rest of the 19th century. Finally, in the early 20th century, we did the right thing and gave women the right to vote. Neither of my grandmothers, as young adult women with families, could vote. It is amazing that that was true just that long ago, but it was. But we corrected it, as we always do. In World War II, this country fought an incredibly difficult world war on three different continents and beat the most powerful nations in the world, and at the end of that war, stood as the only real power left on the Earth. And we had a choice. We could have walked away, come right back to our shores and said, we are going back to being the insular country we have been. We could have also said, we have got more power than everybody else; we are going to use it against everybody else to make ourselves wealthy. We did neither. We stood up and led the world, and created a rules-based order that has benefited people all over the world, that has lifted billions of people out of poverty, that has increased the lifespan of billions of people, that spread democracy and freedom around the globe, because that is who we are. While we were doing that, we were also facing our problems here at home. Yes, we have problems here at home. We didn't finish the work of the Civil War. We had to go through a difficult civil rights movement, and in this House, we adopted the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and in this House, we adopted the 1965 Voting Rights Act. We did that. We provided things for the education of the children of this country they didn't have. We provided things for healthcare in this country that people didn't have. We provided for clean air and clean water. We addressed our own problems while we were leading the world, because that is who we are. We do those things. Now, I understand that there are people that want to give us a different version of that history. They want to tell us that we are all evil from birth, that somehow this country is inherently evil. That just doesn't square with historic facts. They want to rewrite history. The first thing any authoritarian government does is rewrite history or attempt to do it. The authoritarian wannabes in this country are trying to rewrite our history, and they want to do that to pursue a radical agenda that doesn't match up with what the American people want. They try to call themselves Progressives. That is not progressive. Wanting a powerful central government is regressive. That is regressing back to what we rebelled against in 1776. They are not progressive. They are Socialists. They are at least honest in saying that. But they are not progressive. It is regressive. Let me tell you what I hear the American people say in my district and around this country. They are saying this: We Americans aren't evil. We are and have been a force for good here and around the world. We aren't Socialists. We don't want a powerful, overreaching central government. We don't want Medicare for all, where the government makes decisions for us and our doctors, and rations when and how we get our healthcare. We believe our healthcare system is the best in the world, and we want to keep it that way, but we also want to assure that everyone in this country has real access to it. We don't want a Green New Deal, which jacks up our utility bills, saps our economic competitiveness, and destroys jobs. We don't want to defund the police. In fact, we think spending on public safety is a good thing. We value our law enforcement officers and we grieve when one is killed, as dozens are every year. We want our government to defend our shores and interests and protect us here at home. We rely upon the men and women wearing our uniform to do that, and we want our government to take care of them. I have gotten the chance to travel all over the world to see our men and women in uniform, many of them in harm's way, and I am so proud of them. And like most Americans, I want to make sure we are doing the right thing by them. We want to make sure that there is opportunity in this country for everyone. Everyone. Don't leave anybody out. We want everybody to be able to take advantage of all that this Nation has to offer. And to achieve that goal, we need quality education for everybody in this country, and not just for the privileged. It shouldn't be the case that you get one caliber of education because of where you live, one type of education, one quality of education, and a worse one if you live in some other place. We should give everybody the freedom to have quality education so that they can take advantage of those opportunities. We want justice for everyone. Everyone. Because injustice to anyone is injustice to us all. We want our air and water to be clean. We want to continue to be the economic leader of the world. Let me stop and say a word about China. The greatest external threat to this country is China; not the Chinese people, but the Communist Party that runs China. They seek to become the only power in the world; not a power, the only power. And they will do anything--anything. They will stop at nothing to get it. It is past time for us to wake up and understand the threat that they are, not just to us, but to the entire world and that rules-based order we created after World War II. And, Mr. Speaker, we the American people are tired of being divided, divided by our region. Since when is it okay for the coasts to look down on the other parts of the country? We don't want to be divided by race. People aren't defined by the color of their skin, they are not defined by their ethnicity, they are not defined by their national origin. That is anti-American to think that way. We should come together over that. We don't want to be divided by our gender. We don't want to be divided by religion. Whether you have got a religion or not, we don't want to be divided by it. We don't want to be divided by generation, the young versus the old. It has always been that the old handed something valuable to the next generation. That is what we should be about. That division in our country is the greatest internal threat we have got. And I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is the greatest threat of all, because there is nothing that this great Nation can't accomplish when we are united, when we are e pluribus unum, out of many, one. That is who America is, that is who the American people want us to be, and that is the great challenge before this House. I have had a great experience here in Congress. I have met some wonderful people. I have had the privilege of serving on the House Armed Services Committee, the Education and Labor Committee, and the Rules Committee. I have seen a lot of important things be done here and be done right. The best legislation passed in this House is bipartisan legislation. The worst legislation is almost always partisan legislation. Usually it doesn't make it across the finish line, by the way. Our ability to work together should be what we should all be striving for in this House, and I hope the House to follow will do that. Mr. Speaker, before I take my leave, I want to say a few things. I want to thank the many Members of this House who have befriended me and helped me on both sides of the aisle. I particularly want to thank my fellow colleagues in the Alabama delegation. They have been a great family to be a part of. I want to thank the staff. The staff of this House is amazing, so very helpful, so very competent, and we just couldn't get our jobs down without you. I want to thank the good people of southwest Alabama. They gave me the great privilege of being here to represent them as their only representative. What an honor that has been. I hope and pray that I have fulfilled the trust that they put in me, because they are my bosses. I want to thank my many supporters who time and time again helped me, and sometimes it wasn't so easy to do what they had to do. I want to thank my office staff here in Washington and the district. They made me look good every day, and I could not have done what I have done without them. So to all of my staff, present and former, thank you for what you have done for me. And I want to thank my long-suffering family. You know, they have loved me and they supported me, even when I wasn't so lovable and even when it wasn't so easy to support me. I could not have done it without them. So to my son Patrick, his wife, Carolyn, my grandchildren MacGuire and Ann Roberts; my daughter Kathleen and her husband, Steve, and son, Cooper; my daughter Laura, her husband, Lieutenant Commander Stephen Prugh, now presently at the Pentagon; my son Colin; and most of all, I want to thank my wife, Rebecca. You know, these are hard positions and it is really hard to be the spouse of somebody in these positions, and Rebecca has done a tremendous job in supporting me in every way you could ask. She is truly the love of my life for 40 years now, and I want to thank her for all that she has done for me in all those 40 years, but particularly these last 7 years. And now, Mr. Speaker, I say farewell to this House. God bless you all, and God bless the United States of America.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8294, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2020. The original National Apprenticeship Act was passed in 1937 and is now over 80 years old. There is no doubt that Congress should update the Apprenticeship Act; however, the legislation being considered today will harm apprenticeships rather than aid workforce development. H.R. 8294 removes the Department of Labor's ability to administer industry-recognized apprenticeship programs, making only DOL-registered programs available. While DOL-approved programs work for many employers, one-size-fits-all solutions don't work for many industries and are simply not the answer. Industry-recognized apprenticeship programs are developed by third- party groups that are recognized by the Department of Labor. They are held to high standards to ensure apprentices are receiving the training that they need. IRAPs have already proven to be successful in helping to expand access to apprenticeships. Somebody argued that IRAPs are harmful because they think it might limit involvement in union-sponsored apprenticeships. What these individuals do not think about are the areas of the country like mine where union-sponsored apprenticeships do not exist or are extremely limited. My home district has none. Not only does this legislation try to force one-size-fits-all programs on to apprentices and employers while favoring unions, it also drastically increases the amount of bureaucratic red tape placed on States and program sponsors. Apprenticeship programs are fantastic options for individuals to gain skills and find well-paying jobs and for businesses to grow and expand their workforce. Especially in a year that has greatly affected our workers, we should not pass legislation that threatens to reduce access to workforce development or makes it more difficult to run or establish an apprenticeship program. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Donna Givens upon her retirement after a long and accomplished career at Baldwin EMC. Donna's community involvement and professional accolades have led me and many others to call her the Queen of Baldwin County. I do not bestow that designation lightly. I have known and worked with Donna for many years, dating back to my time in the Alabama State Senate two decades ago. She was a force even then, and her level of service and influence in southwest Alabama have only grown. She is recognized across the region for being an asset to Baldwin EMC and their thousands of customers as well as the community at large. I wish Donna my sincerest best wishes in her retirement. I have no doubt she will remain a fixture in the community she so humbly and ably serves.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mayor Dane Haygood of Daphne, who recently retired after 8 successful years in office. The Jubilee City is truly a jewel of southwest Alabama, and as Baldwin County has experienced the fastest growth in Alabama in recent years, Daphne has led the way. No city could experience such rapid growth while retaining its sense of community without good stewardship, and Mayor Haygood deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his 8 years of steady leadership. With Mayor Haygood at the helm, Daphne was one of the chief beneficiaries of the past decade of economic expansion in our region. Mayor Haygood can leave office knowing that Daphne is well positioned to continue on the path to prosperity. I congratulate Mayor Haygood and his family, and I look forward to seeing what the future has in store for them in the years ahead. Recognizing David Baker

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Jimmy Lyons upon his retirement as director and CEO of the Alabama State Port Authority. Over more than two decades, Jimmy's creative, forward-thinking leadership led to transformative growth at one of Alabama's premier assets. Jimmy's steady stewardship guided the port authority during economic highs and lows. Despite a range of challenges, the port has thrived under his leadership. With him at the helm, the port is now one of the fastest growing container terminals in the country. It has added a steel terminal and has vastly expanded its ability to load and unload automobiles, and those are just a few examples. Jimmy also played a critical part in securing upgrades at the port and in the channel that allow a higher number of increasingly large ships from around the globe to use the port with growing ease. While he will be missed, the Alabama State Port Authority, and Alabama's economy, are better positioned for future success than they have ever been because of Jimmy Lyons. I wish him the best in his well- deserved retirement. Honoring the Lives of William and Euber Collins

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the lives of two dear friends who recently passed away, William and Euber Collins. William, known by most as Monty, passed away at 90 years old on November 2, only 1 day before his wife, Euber, who was 88. They were married a remarkable 68 years. After meeting and falling in love at the University of Alabama, Monty and Euber married and found their way to Mobile. Their close partnership enabled them to raise four wonderful children and Monty to have a long, successful career, culminating in his retirement from the First National Bank of Mobile. After his retirement, Monty served as a field representative for my predecessor, Sonny Callahan, and served two terms as a member of the Alabama House of Representatives. Throughout their marriage, Monty and Euber maintained a remarkable level of engagement and service to Mobile. Monty and Euber leave behind a legacy of love for each other, their family, and their community that will be difficult to match in its intensity and longevity. They will be deeply missed and fondly remembered. My heartfelt condolences go out to their family.

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Mayor David Baker of Semmes on his many years of service. Mayor Baker recently left the mayoral office after a distinguished and diverse history of service to his community. Since Mayor Baker began serving as city councilman for Semmes in 2011, he has always been a highly visible and accessible public servant. While in office, Mayor Baker has overseen a period of growth and annexation, and Semmes is well prepared to continue its growth and meet new challenges. A proud graduate of the University of South Alabama in Mobile, Mayor Baker retired as an officer in the United States Army after 20 years of honorable service. Since becoming an educator in 2003, countless high school students in the community have benefited from his wise instruction. I have every confidence Mayor Baker will remain involved in the community, and I wish him and Alice the best in the days ahead. Congratulating Terry Downey

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Terry Downey upon his recent retirement. Since his election in 2016, Mayor Downey has guided Bayou la Batre through a series of significant challenges, including several severe hurricanes and the recent pandemic. Bayou la Batre has a unique heritage as a diverse home with the fishing and seafood processing industries, and Mayor Downey's leadership helped Bayou la Batre weather the storms and protect the livelihoods and culture of its residents. The city is well-prepared to continue handling whatever else may come its way. I thank Mayor Downey for his service, and I join the people of Bayou la Batre in wishing him all the best in the next stage of his life. Congratulating Jimmy Lyons on His Retirement

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8266, the FEMA Assistance Relief Act of 2020. This year has been difficult for everyone, but our small local governments have been some of the hardest hit due to extreme losses in tax revenue. This is especially true in southwest Alabama. In September, Hurricane Sally made landfall in Gulf Shores, bringing record-breaking rainfall, over 30 inches in some places, and winds above 110 miles per hour. Just weeks later, Hurricane Zeta passed through our State, causing further devastation, especially in rural parts of Mobile, Washington, and Clark Counties. That is right. I have had two hurricanes in one season in my district. These storms caused tens of millions of dollars in damage and left significant amounts of debris. This would be difficult on a small town's budget in a normal year, but pandemic-related issues coupled with unexpected costs from severe storm damage will further stretch the already limited budgets of many of our communities. Already, a local government in south Alabama has made the difficult decision not to purchase a much-needed new police vehicle due to the impacts of COVID-19 and Hurricane Sally on their budget. The current 75-25 percent FEMA Federal-State cost share is simply unworkable in this challenging year. This important legislation will raise the Federal cost share of pandemic-related disaster relief to 100 percent and all other relief for disasters this year, including the hurricanes that have devastated the Gulf Coast, to a minimum of 90 percent. Making this adjustment will help reduce the burden on our local communities and help strengthen the recovery process. Mr. Speaker, I hope that Members from both sides will join me in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my thanks and appreciation to Mayor Sandy Smith for her years of service to the people of Monroeville and Monroe County. All the area's residents owe her a debt for her unwavering dedications over many years. As the longtime Executive Director of the Monroeville/Monroe County Chamber of Commerce, Sandy was tireless in pursuing jobs and economic development opportunities for all the county's citizens. Once elevated to mayor, Sandy's advocacy for Monroeville continued with the same professionalism, positivity, kindness, and inclusiveness everyone who knows Sandy would expect. Throughout the years, Sandy has been instrumental in promoting Monroeville as the home of its native daughter, the beloved author Harper Lee, and making Monroeville the tourism center it is today. Truly, her heart is with Monroeville. I wish Sandy, Rayford, their children, and their growing family all the best. I know God will continue to bless them all.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mayor John Koniar of Foley on his upcoming retirement after a remarkable career in public service. Mayor Koniar began his official service to the people of Foley upon his election to the city council in 1980. He began serving as mayor pro tem in 1996 until his appointment to mayor in 2006. The people of Foley have shown their continued trust to Mayor Koniar by reelecting him in 2008, 2012, and 2016. Mayor Koniar has been absolutely indispensable in the promotion of Foley and its remarkable growth over the past several decades. Despite that growth, Foley has maintained its small-town Alabama charm, so exemplified by Mayor Koniar himself. He leaves big shoes to fill, but in no small part due to his leadership, Foley is positioned better than ever. It has been a pleasure to work with Mayor Koniar during my time in Congress, and I wish him and his family all the best as they embark on this new stage in their lives together.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of a man I was proud to call a constituent and a friend, the great author Winston Groom. Winston passed away recently in Fairhope, Alabama, after a long and vibrant life whose words touched untold millions around the globe. Most of America knows Winston is the author of ``Forrest Gump,'' the timeless American novel adapted into the classic film of the same name. Winston and I share a hometown, Mobile, and, as adults, lived near each other in Fairhope. I was blessed to be able to develop a friendship with Winston over the past several decades. Our State of Alabama, particularly southwest Alabama, is renowned for the quality of writers we have produced. We are also renowned for the colorful qualities of many of those writers. Winston was not only an incredible talent who will leave a lasting impact on the literary world, but one of the most colorful characters to ever call Alabama home. As Forrest Gump would say: ``That's all I have to say about that.'' I wish Winston's family all the best, and I thank them for sharing Winston with the world.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Robert Edington. Robert's countless accolades and recognitions reflect a lifetime of devotion to his hometown of Mobile. This impressive list includes a 2012 Mobile Area Veteran of the Year, the 2007 Mobilian of the Year, State president and national director of the Navy League of the United States, chairman of the USS Alabama Battleship Commission, and a member of the Alabama House of Representatives and Alabama State Senate. Robert was active duty with the U.S. Navy from 1951 to 1955, then started in the Navy Active Reserve until his retirement as a commander in 1980. As a Navy Air Operations Officer, he received numerous awards and designations. As a fellow graduate of the University of Alabama School of Law, I had the pleasure of working with Robert on many occasions, and I will miss his passion, professionalism, and friendship. I offer my sincere condolences to his beloved wife, Pat, and their children. They can be proud of the legacy of service that Robert leaves behind.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, the Insurrection Act was passed in 1807 and signed into law by Thomas Jefferson as a delegation by the Congress to the President of the power granted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution to call forth U.S. Armed Forces, number one, to execute the laws; number two, suppress insurrections; and, number three, repeal invasions. In 1827, the President's power to do so was upheld by the Supreme Court in Martin v. Mott. In 1861, it was amended to add a section empowering the President to use the Armed Forces against the will of the Governor of a State in the case of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States. In 1871, it was amended again to allow the President to use U.S. Armed Forces to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and protect Black people from the Ku Klux Klan. President Grant used it three times. To get Democrat support for President Rutherford Hayes in this House during the aftermath of the disputed 1876 Presidential election, Hayes agreed to remove Federal troops from the South, which ended Reconstruction. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 to limit the use of U.S. Armed Forces in domestic matters, thus codifying the compromise. The Insurrection Act provisions are construed as specified exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. As such, it has been used by Democrat Presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. Roosevelt used it to put an end to a Detroit race riot during which 25 Black people were killed, and over 400 were injured. President Eisenhower used it to desegregate Little Rock schools. Kennedy used it to end the race riot at the University of Mississippi in 1962, after James Meredith, a Black man, was enrolled there. He used it again in my home State when Democratic Governor, George Wallace, disgracefully tried to block the enrollment of Vivian Malone and James Hood, both Black people, at the University of Alabama. He also used it to enforce the desegregation of public schools in Alabama in reaction to the hate-filled environment around the State Wallace encouraged. In 1989, it was used by George H.W. Bush in St. Croix in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo; and again in 1992, when the Governor of California asked for assistance in the riots which followed the beating of Rodney King. It has not been used since. Nor did President Trump use it earlier this summer here in Washington. All military personnel used here this year were National Guard, the authorization of which was not needed under the Insurrection Act in this Federal city. Nonetheless, last week this House approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to substantially weaken the operations of the military under the Insurrection Act. Let me be clear: Over the last 200 years, this law has only been used sparingly and only under extreme circumstances, which is only appropriate in a country which highly values the civilian control of our military. Our Armed Services have a primary mission to protect us from enemies without our country. They should rarely be used to do so with people within our country. This unwise House amendment forbids our military when they are called out under the Insurrection Act from participating in search, seizure, arrest, or ``other similar activity,'' unless ``otherwise expressly authorized by law.'' Mr. Speaker, the Insurrection Act is the primary provision that is expressly authorized by law. This amendment would effectively make the Insurrection Act toothless. Imagine General Grant cleaning out the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina with the limiting language of the amendment. Imagine Franklin Roosevelt quelling the Detroit race riot and protecting innocent Black people with that limitation. How about President Kennedy protecting Black students just trying to attend their State universities in Mississippi and Alabama in the face of violent racists and the Ku Klux Klan. What is this House thinking? I submit, in this instance, the House didn't think. It just reacted, as it has these last 2 years, with blind indignation against President Trump. I say ``blind'' because I don't believe many would have voted for such language if Hillary Clinton was President. Thank God the Senate didn't include this language in their version of the NDAA. Mr. Speaker, I ask the conferees from both Houses and both parties to reject this rash amendment and for all of us to return to our senses. Insurrections are rare but ugly things. Let's not tie a future President's hands at a time when our people may need his, and our military's, protection here at home.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Child Care Is Essential Act. Everyone in this Chamber can agree that access to childcare will be vital to the continued reopening of our economy, especially as more and more parents return to work. However, this legislation is not the answer. It would cost an astronomical $50 billion, an amount higher than the total revenue of the childcare industry in the United States, and twice as high as the Bipartisan Policy Center reports that childcare providers actually need. Further, this legislation places so many reporting requirements on agencies that $5 billion of that money, a whopping 10 percent, will go to administrative expenses, rather than helping children get the care that they need. This is not where the red tape is, by the way. The bill places additional and unneeded regulatory burdens on childcare centers that would increase their costs and require them to follow State and CDC guidelines on operations, even when those guidelines may directly contradict each other. The Child Care Is Essential Act also unfairly limits access to these funds. Licensed-exempt facilities like at many churches will be prohibited from accessing these funds. Childcare is essential as parents begin returning to the workplace, however, this bill spends too much taxpayer money and places an undue and unworkable regulatory burden on facilities, Federal agencies, and yes, on families. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I ask my Democratic colleagues to actually come to the table on a bipartisan solution to this issue.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, this weekend America will celebrate its 244th birthday. Unfortunately, we do so in a time of pandemic, a struggling economy, and violent protests. But it is still our birthday, and we should both commemorate and celebrate it. We usually do a good job in our celebration, although this year will be different since social distancing means we will be in smaller groups, and public fireworks displays have been canceled. I suspect most of us will find a way to gather with family and close friends to cook out and show the red, white, and blue. But a commemoration is more than that. Merriam-Webster defines ``commemorate'' as ``to call to remembrance'' or ``to serve as a memorial of.'' How many of us will stop and remember what it meant for the Second Continental Congress to not only declare our independence from Britain, but also to state our reasons for doing so in majestic language positing the highest ideals? Let me make a suggestion: This Fourth, get a copy of the Declaration and read it. My extended family and friends usually get together and have several of us read the various portions of the Declaration out loud and then we talk about its meaning. It doesn't take much time, and we always experience a renewed appreciation for the gift that is our country. This year we will do it virtually, in smaller groups. The Declaration was meant to be read out loud. Indeed, on July 4, Congress not only voted to accept it but also provided for its distribution to the States and to the Continental Army. On July 6, John Hancock as president of Congress, sent letters to the States and to General Washington enclosing broadsides of the Declaration requesting that they have it ``proclaimed.'' It was read out loud to celebrations in dozens of cities and towns in July and August and to the Continental Army on July 9 as it prepared for the British invasion of New York. To some extent these events were meant to inform and inspire the people of a newly independent Nation. But then, and now, the Declaration is a defining document. It not only said we were an independent Nation, but also who we aspire to be. Freedom and equality were to be at the heart of the Nation's character. And the rights stated in the Declaration, life, liberty, and the pursuit of the happiness, are clearly labeled gifts from God himself to all of us. The story of our country is really the unfolding of the efforts to live up to these aspirations. President Lincoln used it as a primary basis for arguing against slavery, as in the Gettysburg Address where he famously said: ``Four score and 7 years ago our Fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new Nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.'' As a result of the Civil War these ideals were enshrined in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Martin Luther King used it in his 1963 ``I Have A Dream'' speech, referring to the Declaration and to the Constitution as a promissory note to all Americans, which he and others of the civil rights movement called upon the Nation to honor. As a result of the movement, Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and in 1965 the Voting Rights Act. I know it is fashionable now among our Nation's elites to view America as evil from our birth, evil in our institutions, and evil in our character. That view is a myth untethered to the reality of our history. This myth is just a false preamble to lay the groundwork for their efforts to radically reorganize our society and have government run every detail of our lives all the while piling tax upon tax upon us. Isn't this type of government what caused the Founders to declare independence in the first place? These elites call themselves ``progressive,'' but their plan is actually a regression to a tyrannical central government taxing us against our will. Despite our faults, some of which have been grievous, we are a Nation established upon the highest ideals which has the strength of its character and institutions to self-correct as we strive toward those ideals. Our history repeatedly demonstrates that is who we are. David McCullough, the Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian, several years ago told a gathering of those of us in Congress that Americans would be more hopeful if we only knew our history. How true. Complicated and contradictory, yes, but it is also a history of spectacular success and of a major force for good here and abroad. So this week let's celebrate and commemorate who we are. Let's pause in the middle of our present troubles to renew our pride as Americans and draw lessons from our founding and history for the resolution of the issues of the day. And let us, like our Founders, ``mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.''

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding. Madam Speaker, to borrow a line from President Reagan: Here we go again. In the midst of a nationwide pandemic where there is so much work we should be doing for the American people, the Democrat majority has again brought a partisan messaging bill to the floor of the House that is dead on arrival in the United States Senate. As the majority knows, this bill includes numerous provisions that are nonstarters for Republicans in any legislation related to healthcare, including: expanding ObamaCare, no protections against taxpayer-funded abortion, the rolling back of numerous Trump administration regulations that have made health insurance more affordable, and financial penalties for States that don't expand Medicaid. Certainly, it seems bad timing to be enacting legislation that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has already confirmed will lead to fewer new drugs on the market, but the Democrats have again included their socialist prescription drug bill in this legislation. Madam Speaker, there are real areas where we could be working together to find common ground in healthcare. There could be common ground on reinsurance. Six months ago, Republicans suggested over 40 bipartisan prescription drug provisions we could actually enact that would encourage innovation and groundbreaking new cures and promote low-cost options for patients. We are still waiting on Speaker Pelosi to take up that package of bipartisan bills. The truth is Democrats are not actually interested in finding solutions. They are interested in ramming political legislation through the House in an effort to influence the 2020 Presidential race and decry additional controversies for Democrat House Members to run on. Republicans are ready to have a serious conversation about making healthcare more affordable and accessible, but just like with police reform last week, the other side is not. The American people are ready for us to get back to working for them.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to overriding President Trump's veto of H.J. Res. 76. Everyone in this Chamber can agree that schools that commit fraud and take advantage of students must be held accountable. However, returning to the 2016 borrower defense rule put in place by the Obama administration is not the answer. Put simply, the Obama-era rule sends millions of taxpayer dollars to those who were not harmed by their university. Under the Obama-era rule, the standard to define fraud was placed so low that the Department of Education saw about 300,000 relief applications in just 5 years. Compare that to the just 59 applications in the previous 20 years the borrower defense process has been in place. Understanding this problem, the Trump administration released an updated borrower defense rule in 2019 to prevent fraud, ensure taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly, and cut the regulatory red tape that has made it difficult for students and educational institutions to understand the old rule. The new rule also ensures that due process, a founding principle of our Nation, is in place for both students and institutions. The cost of allowing the Obama rule to stand is great, over 40 billion taxpayer dollars. Thankfully, the changes made by the Trump administration will save taxpayers billions while still ensuring that students are protected from fraud. The Trump administration rule applies relief where it is needed, unlike the overly broad Obama-era rule. This should be something both parties can support. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that students who are defrauded by educational institutions deserve debt relief, but the Obama-era rule is not the answer. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and sustain the President's veto.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken out against racism from this floor before, but under the present regrettable circumstances, I feel compelled to do so again. All of us are created in the image of God and are of equal and inestimable moral worth--all of us. There are no exceptions. Both St. Peter and St. Paul spoke out against prejudice. Our Declaration of Independence states plainly that we are all created equal. Our laws require equality of treatment and opportunity. It is a fact that we betrayed this ideal when our country was founded when we tolerated slavery, an immoral human practice, which in this country was carried out by Whites against Blacks. It took nearly 90 years after our founding to erase this blot when we passed the 13th Amendment. It also took a civil war, which cost 600,000 lives. Even then, we didn't grant Black people true equality. For the next 100 years, they endured Jim Crow laws in the South, de facto segregation in the rest of the country, violence, and inequality in everything from schools to jobs. They had to win equality for themselves by bravely marching, protesting, and using every peaceful method they could find in the civil rights movement. They gradually won key court cases. And, finally, this House and the Senate passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and, in 1965, the Voting Rights Act. But laws don't change hearts, and we are still walking the path toward ridding this Nation of the scourge of racism. As I have watched COVID work its will in my district, I have been distraught to see the disproportionate effect on the health and lives of the one-third of my constituents who are Black--on Black workers and business owners who suddenly, and through no fault of their own, lost their jobs and their businesses, and on Black children who lost months of their education, which they badly need. The chief of police in Mobile, the urban center of my district, is Lawrence Battiste, a 27-year veteran of law enforcement and, yes, a Black man. We had a Sunday afternoon of protests a few weeks ago, and I watched as he and the officers under his direction carried out their duties with professionalism and character. ``Character.'' I use that word because it is so important right now and because I have long admired Dr. King's statement that we shouldn't be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character. I am proud of Chief Battiste and his officers, but they aren't the only professionals performing their duties under extraordinarily difficult circumstances and with character. There are many, many law enforcement officers around this country who are truly public servants, and they deserve our respect and our support. We, in this House, can disagree on the appropriate policies to pursue to achieve justice and right the wrong of continuing inequality. But there is no disagreement that racism is wrong, is morally repugnant. There is also no disagreement that doing nothing in the face of continuing racism isn't acceptable. We, in this House, need to work together, not in parallel partisan efforts. This House came together to pass the CARES Act earlier this year. Surely, we can come together to pass meaningful and bipartisan law enforcement reform legislation that will actually go to the President and become law. I wish we would address more funding for community health centers so poor people, and especially people of color, would have better access to primary care, which would help equalize health outcomes. I also wish we would take up education choice legislation, like Education Freedom Scholarships so that minority children have the same opportunities for a quality education as their peers from families with the means to pay for better schools. We are capable of so much more in this country, but only if we remember the one stated purpose of our Constitution is to create a more perfect union. That is not a one-and-done thing; it is a generation- after-generation thing. It is time to unite in this body and do the hard work of this generation. Let's do it for the Lawrence Battistes out there. Let's do it for our children and grandchildren. And let's do it because that will reveal the content of our national character, which is far more important than the color of our skin.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the majority leader talk about a statement that Abraham Lincoln made. He made it in his annual report to the Congress on December 1, 1862. In that message, he proposed one of the dumbest ideas that has ever been put forth in this Congress and that was: instead of freeing the enslaved people in this country, we would round them up and put them on boats and take them back to Africa. That is what was in his message. He talks about the tired dogmas of the past. The Constitution is not dogma. It is the fundamental law of this country. Remember, on December 1, 1862, this Congress was in this room. Fifty miles away, 10 days later, a fierce and awful battle took place in Fredericksburg, with 18,000 casualties. If it hadn't been winter, the Confederate Army could have come here and taken this building. Yet, they continued to meet here, through pandemics of yellow fever and malaria. This was the hottest spot in the country for typhoid fever for over 15 years, and the Congress still met in this room. Millions of Americans go to work every day, doing their jobs, and they expect us to do the same. Instead of adopting this very ill- considered rule, we should all get to Washington, do our jobs, and take care of the American people.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the CARES Act. The situation on the ground demands action, which we must provide today. Last week, 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment. Small businesses around this country are shuttering. Millions of Americans and their children are at home practicing social distancing, a term that few knew 2 weeks ago. Countless others are on the front lines in our hospitals, doctors' offices, and pharmacies or simply checking us out at the grocery store. The American people need our help. No region or section of the economy has been spared by this pandemic but South Alabama, which I represent, has been particularly hit hard. Millions of Americans come here every year to enjoy the weather, the beaches, and our southern way of life during the March and April Spring Break seasons. This all changed overnight. Countless small business owners have lost one of their busiest times of the year, and thousands of hard-working Alabamians have been let go from their job through no fault of their own. The Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. This principle guides my support of this bill today. In essence, the government has asked our nation's businesses and workers to shoulder the burden of economic shutdown, during good times, for the wellbeing of the country. For that reason, it is fair and just that we provide them a lifeline to help them weather this storm. The situation is truly dire. Many small businesses are weeks or days away from depleting their cash reserves. When these small businesses close, rarely do they reopen. Thus, if we do not act, the economic devastation caused by extreme social distancing could plague communities for years. Yesterday, I spoke to many small businesses in my district on a call. I was struck when one asked me to give them hope. To the American people who are watching, there is hope, and the help you need is on the way. To small business owners, I say there is no more important provision in this bill than the Paycheck Protection Program. Through this program or nation's small businesses and 501(c)(3) nonprofits will be able to obtain a new 100 percent federally backed loan at an attractive interest rate. These loans will feature an automatic deferral for 6 months. Most importantly, if the small business or non-profit uses their Paycheck Protection Program loan to cover their payroll, rent, mortgage interest, or utilities during an eight-week period, the loan will be forgiven. The only requirement for this forgiveness is for employers to maintain their payroll or hire their workers back. Thus, we have effectively said to these hurting small businesses, don't close your doors and keep your employees. And, if you do those things, which are necessary for us to exit the crisis quickly and effectively, we will give you a grant. Congress specifically wrote this program to utilize the existing SBA 7(a) loan program. Unlike SBA disaster loans, these loans are generated by private banks, credit unions, and other lending institutions. We did this purposefully. We don't want bureaucrats at the SBA holding things up. We want the banks and credit unions you trust to get the money out to you as quickly as possible. For our nation's workers who are struggling, we have provided enhanced unemployment benefits for those who have lost their job because of the coronavirus through no fault of their own. I strongly support this aid to help the millions who have been laid off and furloughed get through this difficult time. Unfortunately, it is my fear that in our haste to help, we may have done real economic harm. Almost everyone supports enhanced unemployment benefits for those who have lost their job due to COVID-19, but by having a flat $600 benefit for many workers on top of their normal state benefit, we will put some workers in a better position to not work than they would have been had they not been laid off due to the pandemic. This could lead to employers increasing layoffs and could cause employees to fail to seek to work once the crisis is abated. Not only is this a recipe for a government financed work disincentive, but the loss of these workers from the economy could strain our recovery. Basic economics should dictate to all of us that we should never make the cost of not working better than the cost of working. For that reason, I am deeply disappointed that the Democrats in the House and the Senate refused to provide for a simple fix to cure this issue. I am also disappointed that other special interest and pork provisions crept into this bill at the last minute. The essential pieces of this legislation were ironed out almost a week ago, yet Democrats held up this important bill with a list of demands. Fortunately, most were rejected by negotiators from the Trump Administration but some were included in the bill. At the request of House and Senate Democrats, a number of pet projects received pork funding in this legislation. The American people should know that Republicans fought these provisions. Yet, despite our best efforts to keep them out, funding for the Kennedy Center, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Amtrak, and the Postal Service was included, among others. Additionally, at a time when employers are cutting back, new funds for Congressional staff and expenses were also added. This is disgraceful. Had the Speaker allowed an up or down vote on including these funds, they would have been stripped from the bill with bipartisan support. Yet, Washington as usual has resulted in their inclusion. The American people have a right to be angry about this pork. I hope there is bipartisan support to rescind it in the coming days. The provision of the bill designed to help mid-sized companies also contains several lines that--while they may seem innocuous--are special interest gifts to big labor. Specifically, the bill requires that employers maintain existing collective bargaining agreements already in place and requires neutrality in any attempt to unionize. Changing times call for changing agreements between management and labor. By locking existing collective bargaining agreements in place, we put the thumb on the scale of labor to the detriment of the health of the business. More fundamentally, ``neutrality'' in organizing means allowing the union to talk to a business's employees without the employer being able to present the other side of what unionization could mean to the employer. This is fundamentally unfair to employers and employees. These provisions will undoubtedly make certain industries and certain companies less likely to apply for the assistance they need to maintain their workforce. It will also provide an unfair advantage to companies already unionized over those who are not and to areas of the country that have a heavy union presence. Union membership is declining nationwide. We don't need a union bailout in a bill to help with the coronavirus recovery. Finally, I note the enormous price tag of this bill. We should all pause to think about over $2 trillion--the largest appropriations bill in the history of the Congress--being rung up on our nation's credit card with little warning. I do not question the need for such a major economic rescue package but we cannot continue to borrow in good times with the idea that we will simply borrow even more in the bad. America must have a serious conversation about how much government we are willing to pay for. This crisis should show us that the international order for things that we have depended on for decades is not more than a crisis away from a collapse. Today it is a medical supply collapse. Tomorrow it may be our debt. No party is without blame for our debt situation. Many things must change in the aftermath of this crisis, and we must ensure that our lack of fiscal responsibility is one of them. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is there are many things in this bill I do not like. There are portions that I think are a mistake. But, Mr. Speaker, this is our time for action. The good in here outweighs the bad. Do not hold this bill up. We owe it to the citizens of this great country who are struggling. We owe action for them today.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, last week, 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment. Small businesses around this country are shuttering. Millions of Americans and their children are at home practicing social distancing, a term that few knew 2 weeks ago. Countless others are on the front lines in our hospitals, doctors' offices, and pharmacies or simply checking us out at the grocery store. Yesterday, I spoke to many small businesses in my district on a call. I was asked to give them hope. To the American people who are watching: There is hope, and help is on the way. There are many things in this bill I do not like. There are portions that I think are a mistake. But, Mr. Speaker, this is our time for action. Do not hold this bill up. We owe it to the citizens of this great country who are struggling. We owe action for them today.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, when our Founding Fathers began this great experiment called the United States of America, they did so with the fresh but unpleasant memories of a tyrannical and repressive monarchy. They set out to create a new system of government that served American citizens, while ensuring their rights and liberties and protecting the powers of the individual States. To protect this system of Federalism, certain powers were required to be vested with the Federal Government. In our Constitution, our Founders gave, or enumerated in their language, specific powers to our Federal Government necessary to provide for a common defense, establish the rules for naturalizing new citizens, and ensure the integrity of our international borders. Controlling immigration into our country is essential for the rule of law. The integrity of our system requires a cooperation, though sometimes a tense one, between the Federal and lower governments. Sadly, a growing movement across many cities and jurisdictions has undermined our constitutional order and the rule of law which protects it. The result of these dangerous and misguided policies is so-called sanctuary cities. These sanctuary cities do not cooperate, and even undermine, Federal law enforcement from apprehending criminal aliens. The irony is that sanctuary cities become more unsafe and inhospitable to law-abiding Americans, those my colleagues and I have sworn a duty to protect. These reckless policies are a danger not just to people in sanctuary cities but beyond. When dangerous criminals are allowed quarter in one location, it is only a matter of time before they move to another location to continue their criminal activity. Sadly, many American citizens have been victimized, even murdered. That is why last year Congressman Budd and I introduced the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act. Our bill will provide for individuals to sue sanctuary cities and jurisdictions if they are harmed in a violent crime committed by an illegal immigrant. If jurisdictions refuse to be sued, they will lose out on Federal grant money. As President Trump said about our bill, it will ``give American victims the right to sue sanctuary cities and hold them accountable for the thousands of lives they have shattered.'' This will disincentivize sanctuary policies that fuel even more illegal immigration and harm the safety and security of Americans. I have been to our southern border. I have spoken directly with ICE, CBP, and other law enforcement agents there, the crisis is real. We have thousands of miles of border and coastline. Border security cannot stop at the border. Those who manage to sneak in, especially those with criminal histories, cannot be given a free pass once they make it across. Sanctuary cities that undermine our laws must be held accountable. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for joining with me today to speak out on this problem and call for action on the Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the distinguished ranking member, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, there is one reason we are here today and one reason alone. It is not to protect American workers. No, it is to protect big labor and their bosses. There is so much real work to be done. We should be working to empower American workers, to modernize our employment laws, and to meet the demands of the 21st century economy. Instead, with this legislation, my friends on the other side want to turn back the clock and try to force power back into the hands of union bosses. Make no mistake, this bill is a massive job killer. It will wipe out right-to-work laws which have now been adopted in a majority of States in this country. It will close small businesses. It will allow union bosses the freedom to coerce American workers, and it will force millions to pay union dues against their consent. For some reason, my friends on the other side refuse to see the results of the proworker Trump agenda. When government gets out of the way, when we put down the regulatory pen, when we let the American economy work, American ingenuity will lead the world. At a time of record prosperity, they propose we bring back many of the failed policies of the Obama administration, the very policies that led to so many years of stagnation. My message to my friends on the other side is clear: Do not betray the American worker. Do not turn back the clock. Vote ``no'' on the PRO Act.

Mr. BYRNE

Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, after a long, embarrassing month, the House will finally transmit the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump to the United States Senate. Yet I understand Speaker Pelosi and her managers will continue to push for witnesses in the Senate trial because, in their words, they want the facts. That claim is nonsense. House Democrats blocked the testimony of the whistleblower, DNC staffer Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr with Fusion GPS, and, of course, the two gentlemen pictured to my left, Devon Archer and Hunter Biden. In reality, the Democrats' entire case depended on hiding the facts. As more facts emerged last year, their case collapsed. Public support for their impeachment fell as the weakness of their case was exposed. I remind my majority that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I predict House Democrats will not fare as well blocking these witnesses in Mitch McConnell's United States Senate.