Rich McCormick

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 305, I mistakenly voted ``present'' when I intended to vote ``no.'' Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Davidson

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chairman, I applaud Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith and the House Armed Services Committee and its staff for crafting the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. This is not an easy process, but even as a freshman member of the committee and as a veteran of over 20 years, I always felt my voice was heard, as well as my colleagues, and that we were heard and considered. This NDAA secures the future of our military and our Nation. It makes critical investments to improve the lives of our servicemembers and give our warfighters the tools they need to meet tomorrow's needs. H.R. 2670 also combats another concerning trend, which is on the mind of every American, particularly those who serve, the politicization of our military. In the military we may be different shades of green, but we all bleed red. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support the NDAA that ensures our military is squarely focused on the mission set outlined in the oath of office that my fellow servicemembers and I swore to uphold. Once again, I thank Chairman Rogers for bringing this year's NDAA to fruition, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. I rise today to commemorate and honor the 190th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Kingdom of Thailand. As our two nations celebrate this historic milestone, I want to acknowledge the enduring bond of trust and collaboration since the signing of the 1833 Treaty of Amity and Commerce. I want to reflect on the remarkable journey we have shared with our oldest treaty ally in the Asia-Pacific region and celebrate the invaluable partnership that has flourished between our nations. Thailand was designated a major non-NATO ally in 2003 and is one of the strongest security partners of the United States. The annual Cobra Gold Exercise remains the largest multinational military exercise in the Indo-Pacific region. Our two countries have fought side by side in countless conflicts such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and most notably Thailand was one of the first Asian nations to commit troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. The longstanding friendship and partnership between The United States and Thailand has been a cornerstone of stability and progress in the Asia-Pacific region with multilateral agreements that have furthered our shared commitment to democratic values, human rights, and economic cooperation. This is reflected in the U .S.-Thailand Communique on Strategic Alliance and Partnership, signed last year, and the first ever U.S.-Thailand Strategic and Defense Dialogue held last year. We must recognize Thailand's unwavering commitment to our shared values throughout the ebbs and flows of shared adversity and prosperity. Therefore, I warmly thank the Royal Thai Embassy in Washington, D.C. for organizing the Sawasdee Thai Festival, which commemorates the enduring friendship between our two nations. As we celebrate this significant milestone, it is essential to recognize the individuals who have contributed to enhancing the understanding and strengthening the ties between our nations. I want to extend my heartfelt appreciation and recognition to Park Boonnuch, who has provided invaluable assistance to my Congressional Office and been a valuable help in various matters of Foreign Affairs. Through Mr. Boonnuch's dedication and expertise, we have gained a deeper understanding of the Thai people's rich culture, history, and aspirations. Mr. Boonnuch has also demonstrated a strong passion for understanding the intricacies of the United States government system. We have witnessed his desire to acquire knowledge and share this newfound wisdom to improve U.S.-Thailand cooperation . As a result of his tireless efforts, not only have we witnessed an enhanced spirit of cooperation between our nations, but we have also borne witness to the blossoming of a profound fellowship that unites us ever closer. As we look ahead, let us reaffirm our commitment to the enduring friendship between Thailand and the United States--``as long as heaven and earth shall endure''--as reflected in the Treaty's preamble. May the next one thousand years be marked by even deeper diplomatic relations, cultural exchange, and mutual respect. Together, we can build a future that upholds our values and paves the way for continued prosperity and friendship.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, I wanted to take this time to explain to my constituents why consistency in political thought is important. Many people were excited and encouraged when I voted against lifting the deficit cap recently. The reason I did this was that I did not want an unidentified amount of debt accumulation while we shaved a small portion of 11 percent off the budget. Meanwhile, we did not address executive power and bureaucracies that were out of control and that could cost us far more than we could save. In short, I wanted the REINS Act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Ironically, I have made unpopular votes that are consistent with the same philosophy. For example, I voted against keeping a fee for all VA loans, that all veterans have to pay for every loan. The fee is taken in order to pay for IT training for a small number of veterans. I did not think it was fair that every veteran would pay for the education of just a few veterans that would otherwise be paid for by the GI Bill already. Just because the name ``veteran'' is attached to a bill does not make it the right thing to do. Likewise, I voted against creating more government oversight on the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are working great. It has created some of the most innovative peacekeeping processes in modern history. However, creating more government, especially in the form of another executive appointee, to a process that is already working well did not make sense to me. Well-intended bureaucracy and increasing executive power is the greater part of what I have been fighting against since I arrived in D.C. We are already out of balance. The REINS Act was meant to bring back into control executive power and bureaucracies. Why would I vote for something that would increase more bureaucracy and more executive power? No one should doubt my support for Israel or my admiration of the Abraham Accords. In April of this year, I voted in favor of H. Res. 311, a resolution encouraging the expansion and strengthening of the Abraham Accords, a resolution urging nations throughout the region to improve their relationships with Israel and strengthen the U.S.-Israel alliance. With that said, whether it is about government spending, debt, increasing fees on an entire veteran population for the sake of a few, or increasing executive power and bureaucracy, I will remain politically consistent and thoughtful. That is my promise. I believe in the individual, not more government. We need to bring back the balance of power that was designed by the Constitution for a purpose. More government, more debt, and more fees are seldom the answer. I remain semper fidelis to this philosophy, and to the people.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, we have a massive problem. We just got done talking about the budget and the deficit, but there is no possible way to address that without addressing healthcare. Healthcare is the biggest spending item for the government. Madam Speaker, $1 out of every $5 spent by the government is spent on healthcare, and it is the quickest growing inflationary cost to Americans. Right now, if we consider Medicaid and Medicare, and we consider the amount of money we spend on private pay, which is about one-fifth of the economy also, in a GDP of roughly $24 trillion, we are spending $6 trillion on healthcare alone. If it were taken by itself, it would be the third largest GDP in the world. It would have twice the GDP size of India, which has 1.47 billion people. This is a massive problem. What are we going to do? How do we take on something so complex? I think it is an underserved problem in the United States Congress. We have been kicking the can down the street for far too long, from the Clinton administration all the way to the Obama administration. The Affordable Care Act did nothing to make it affordable. We have done nothing to curb the inflationary costs, and it is certainly not the doctors' problem because doctors took a 2.3 percent pay cut last year alone. If you are an ER doctor in Georgia, you probably took about an 18 percent pay decrease in 1 year, and that is after serving during COVID for 3 years on nights, weekends, and holidays. That is your congratulations. How do we address this? Quite frankly, we are going to have to make some hard choices. America has to understand, first of all, how complex this issue is when you have PBMs, GPOs, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, Medicaid, Medicare, when you have the government involved, private pay, when you have hospital systems and healthcare providers. These are just some of the problems we have. Right now, 90 percent of the ingredients that go into drugs are produced in China. You have almost all of the market for amoxicillin and Augmentin cornered by an adversarial nation. We have admin costs that have grown in the hospital system from 25 percent to 40 percent in just the last 10 years. Take that into account. Forty percent of every dollar spent on healthcare is spent on administrative costs. That means too much regulatory burden, not enough competition. We continue to talk about a single-payer system as the end-all, be- all to healthcare. Let's take that into account right now. Medicaid is done at a loss. It doesn't pay the bills. As a matter of fact, we have an act right now that talks about supplementing people with a tax break so they can actually see more Medicaid patients and afford it and stay open. It is not the answer. If we go to a single-payer system, you are talking about adding $30 trillion of expense to the government in the next 10 years. That means $30 trillion more in either tax or debt. We have pretty much lost our minds over the $32 trillion of debt we are already in. Imagine adding $30 trillion more to spending. It would be the largest increase in spending and government control there has ever been in American history. We have a massive problem. On top of that, despite spending about $32 billion on electronic medical records and spending a lot of money on coders, in many cases, we still have 45 percent of claims not being reimbursed by insurance companies. This simply can't continue to happen. People are using their insurance companies the wrong way. If we used car insurance the same way we use healthcare insurance, you would be spending your car insurance to actually change your car oil. It would probably cost about $500 per pop, and you wouldn't be able to afford car insurance. We need to look at this in a different way. The problem is, if I talk about cutting administrative costs in medicine, people will immediately vilify me for trying to cut Medicaid and Medicare. This is why it has to be a bipartisan issue. We have to have a real conversation, and it can't be about calling people names but about actually solving a problem. If we want to talk about a real solution, I think we have to start thinking about not just taking this as subcommittees, not just a subcommittee of Energy and Commerce, not just a subcommittee of Ways and Means, not just a subcommittee of VA or a subcommittee of Foreign Affairs. We actually have to have staff that are dedicated to a process that is so complex, so big, has so many lobbyists involved that it is impossible for a physician with an MBA to figure out how to handle it himself. This is something we are going to have to take as a problem that all of us have to solve without vilifying each other. If we don't do it soon, we will increase government and increase spending, and we will have rationing simultaneously. Final point: If you want a good example of a single-payer system, the VA is exactly what you are going to get, and it is not popular.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, I am new to Congress, so maybe I don't see the same problems that other Congressmen and Congresswomen do, but I will tell you one thing, I know the people. I have yet to hear one constituent say we need more regulation. Nobody is telling me that they want the President to make universal decisions for all of us. The fact is, we are out of balance. Congress doesn't have the same power it is supposed to have enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The fact that we have a President that can spend more money than we can save is the exact reason why I just voted against the lifting of the deficit cap. I can sum this up in one thing: You just made mention from the other side of the House, look, we make hundreds of rules by bureaucracies, hundreds of rules per year. How can we address that in Congress? Well, that is exactly the problem. We spend half our time in Congress litigating and debating the rules that were made by bureaucracies. You are right. We don't have time for that. We don't have time to tell you that we shouldn't put people in jail for something that was made, essentially, law by a bureaucracy. We don't have time to fight over money that was given away by bureaucracies or spent by bureaucracies. We don't have time to fight a President in the Supreme Court because of a decision that he made without the approval of Congress when it comes to the budget which we, by the Constitution, should have responsibility for.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to address a very important visit by Prime Minister Modi this week. I am excited that this person is coming to America to extend goodwill between our two nations in one of the most strategically important relationships we have in the world. If you consider their relationship to Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh, and the economic power that they hold, it is an economy that has been blossoming in the last 10 years and has increased by over 30 percent while Canada and Russia have actually maintained a flat or decreasing GDP. The reason this has happened is because they have embraced a constitution very similar to the United States' and values very similar to ours. I call that we continue to extend our military actions, our military purchasing power, and our economic reliance on each other into the future as we accept Prime Minister Modi here in the United States in the most important accolades that we recognize leadership across the world.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the legislation efforts that we have had recently to define fentanyl as poison and to address a very serious problem in the United States where we had 110,000 people die last year alone. As an emergency medicine physician, to see anywhere from one to five overdoses per night, to see four patients come in that I could not revive and that are no longer with us is a serious problem. I caution everybody in Congress--from my conservative roots and the conservative values that made this Nation what it is--not to turn to legislation to solve this problem. We need to understand that this is a people problem. Ultimately, you can spend a trillion dollars overseas, you can fight wars, you can secure your border, but until we get our hearts straight, we will not solve this very real problem. Until we understand that when our children are taught that they are supporting murderers and rapists and child traffickers, people who would do harm to all of us, then they will stop the incentive of creating the demand, and the problem will go away. This is a problem of our house but not this House, the house of our family.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I am here today to discuss my amendment to H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act. Currently, firearms from agencies such as the Secret Service are destroyed once they are retired from service or replaced with new models. This is wasteful and makes no sense. Many law enforcement officers have a special connection to their firearms they use in the line of duty. They would like to take them home to cherish as family heirlooms. It is only fair to allow the courageous men and women of law enforcement to purchase their service weapons upon retirement, and we should let them do that at a low cost because these are going to be thrown out anyway. This shouldn't be a revenue-raising scheme for the government. Our law enforcement officers should be able to keep their firearms at a reasonable cost. My amendment simply changes H.R. 3091 by changing the term ``fair market value'' to ``salvage value,'' which is what would be done to the weapons anyway, salvaging it. Salvage value is defined as: ``The value of the asset after it becomes useless to the owner or the amount expected to be obtained when a fixed asset is disposed of at the end of its useful life,'' which is exactly what is happening here. This definition is for the lawyers, appraisers, and accountants, but what I want to talk about is what it means to our law enforcement officers. This change would allow them to purchase their retired service firearms, which in many cases they discharged in the line of duty to save lives, at a lower cost than the current ``fair market value,'' which it would not be disposed at. Under current policy, these firearms are destroyed, so the purchase is at salvage value by definition. It would still increase government revenues, because you are actually purchasing it at the same amount and you wouldn't have to actually have the expense of salvaging it, while allowing Federal law enforcement officers to purchase the service weapons that have protected them throughout their careers at a fair price. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, the basic premise is a misunderstanding of what this is about. First of all, the weapon would otherwise be destroyed. The only money that would come from it is either the money that is spent on destroying the weapon or the money that was obtained from it by destroying the weapon which would be salvage monetary price, which would be approximately $100 for an average Glock. That is weapon scrap. That is what it is worth. That is how much you would get back from the government. The gentleman from New York talks about the government supplementing police officers who served an entire career. I was a career military person with over 20 years in the military. My father was a deputy sheriff. This isn't a money-making scheme. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. This isn't for the government to make money off of. This is to do the right thing. This is at best a neutral bill. This shouldn't be about the military people who just spent 20 years of their life paying money to expand the coffers of the American government when otherwise it would be worth about $100 as scrap metal. The misrepresentation that this should be money that our retirees spend on a weapon that would otherwise be destroyed--and nothing else would be done with that weapon, by the way. When the gentleman talks about fair market value, the fair market value in the market for this is salvage. It is what would be done with the weapon to begin with. The misnomer, the misrepresentation that retired officers that have spent their entire career protecting this Nation, bonding with something that saves their lives and protects other people, is actually kind of offensive to me as a guy who has carried around a service rifle and a service pistol, when I was overseas, in harm's way, the same way my father carried around his service pistol in harm's way. This is not to make money for the government. This is to do the right thing by those police officers and those law enforcement individuals who served their entire life doing nothing but serving their community. That is what this is about and nothing else. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I am going to define once again what this bill is about because I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is at the end of its service life, if it is no longer useful, it is going to be salvaged. Salvaged. We are defining what is happening at the end of a useful life value. Salvaged. It is going to be destroyed. That is what the government will do with it. The government is not going to sell it; the government is going to salvage it. The government is not going to put it on the market, the fair market for a used weapon, they are going to destroy it. Therefore, the value of the weapon is whatever it is destroyed for. That is the definition. That is clear in this bill, and that has been defined. Trying to mislead the public on what this is about is, once again, offensive to me. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, this National Police Week, I rise today in gratitude for those who protect our homes and families, bring justice to the evildoer, and comfort to their countrymen in distress. These dedicated men and women, who put their lives on the line as they put on their uniforms every day, often do not receive the support that they deserve. From corporate media to Hollywood, even to this Congress, American police officers frequently receive abuse instead of thanks, and blame where they deserve applause. However, hardworking, law-abiding American families and citizens know better. They know the importance of fighting crime and protecting the innocent, and they know the cost. In 2022, 11 Georgia police officers died in the line of duty. So far in 2023, we have lost another. Last week, I had the honor of presenting a wreath at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, D.C. dedicated to those courageous men and women, the heroic peace officers of Georgia, and all across America. May their service and sacrifice never be forgotten and may Americans always proudly back the blue. Semper fidelis.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 213.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. Seventy-five years ago, 11 minutes after David Ben Gurion announced the creation of the new Jewish state, President Harry Truman became the first world leader to recognize Israel. Our nations have been friends and partners ever since. The people of Israel have won against overwhelming odds and repelled many attacks over the decades. They have not merely survived; they have created a free and prosperous society, becoming our most valued ally in the region. What they have accomplished is nothing short of miraculous. They have revived a dead language and rejuvenated agriculture, technology, and prosperity. No matter what acts of terror or threats they face, Israel will always have the right to self-defense and self-determination. I congratulate her people for this anniversary of independence in their historic homeland, and pray that they may be blessed with strength, peace, and unity for generations to come.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, I too have major concerns about this nomination. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of President Biden's nominee for Secretary of Labor, Julie Su. America's labor secretary should defend both American workers and understand the economy which provides jobs, feeds families, and keeps our communities strong. Unfortunately, Ms. Su oversaw and distributed about $32.6 billion in fraudulent unemployment claims paid out to death row inmates, international criminal syndicates, and other fraudsters. She has tried and failed to obscure this fact in front of the Senate Committee. While she was doing this, Su also denied or delayed over 5 million legitimate unemployment insurance claims. She was also an architect and key enforcer in California law that effectively outlaws freelance work in California, destroying the livelihoods of thousands of families. Our Nation's 1099 employees are just as important to this country as the liberal elite donors that are so set on destroying the American working class. The facts are clear, President Biden should pick someone else to be his Labor Secretary. I urge my colleagues in the United States Senate to stand with America's workers, to stand for American prosperity, and stand for a better nominee for the Department of Labor.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, this is one of my favorite debates. In my short time in Congress, and even in observing Congress, here you have people from both sides of the aisle actually taking opposition to each other so we can have a real conversation. There are people that I respect on my side of the aisle and people that I respect and disagree with on the other side of the aisle having a real debate that has little to do with partisanship but really about principle. It is refreshing. Much like H.R. 21, which was probably the most fascinating vote we have taken to date since I have been in Congress, we actually had a Republican, somebody whose credentials as a conservative are not questioned at all, who had more people from the Democratic Party vote for his bill than from the Republican Party. He had the squad vote for him and his bill. That is bipartisanship in a certain way. Yet, we have this debate right now in a similar fashion on Somalia. This is not a place that is unknown to me. I was there during part of the U.N. withdrawal in 1994 off the coast on the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. I spent time in Entebbe, Uganda, as part of Operation Restore Hope when we had our problem with Rwanda. Africa is a place of many troubled nations. There is no doubt about it. The question we have today is: What is good for America? This isn't about nation-building. This is about protecting our Nation. This is a debate over whether we are going to save lives or lose lives that are American by what our actions are in the near future; and into the future of how we plan our force structure and what we deploy with around the world. I am very much concerned that if we are not in these regions, especially in Somalia, which is one of the most war-torn areas we know of, that we will have an increase in terrorist activities. When you see a country like Afghanistan and the way it is deteriorating right now-- you have 27 terrorist cells training there--because of the lack of presence of good guys trying to make sure that bad guys don't propagate and proliferate and making sure they are not recruiting people and sending people over here to do harm to us, it is a minor miracle that we haven't had another 9/11 in so long. If you think about it, the incredible work that we have had done by our intel community and our Special Forces and other Americans around the world to circumvent that from happening is nothing short of Herculean. I would make the case that because we have forces all around the world, we have been a safer place. We have saved American lives. This isn't about building a nation of 17 million people. This is about protecting the Nation of 330 million people. I want to make sure that we are clear in this argument that this is not about seeking war. No one who spent time in the military wants war. I spent over 20 years in the military myself. I spent years away from my family, as well. I served with three different forces: Marine Corps, Army, and Navy. Nobody wants war less than I do. Nobody wants to see Americans killed more than any military commander. As a matter of fact, when we send these people, it is not because a politician wants to go over there. Usually it is because a general or an area commander has requested these troops in collaboration with each other. We are talking about decades of experience in the region, and they understand what is at stake. They don't want war. They don't want American troops to lose their lives. As a matter of fact, they are judged historically on how many American lives they save, on how many American troops that they don't put in harm's way. This isn't about seeking war. This is about avoiding war. This isn't about protecting their nation. It is protecting our Nation. We have an obligation to watch over this great Nation of ours. I think it is not by pulling back, but engaging in other countries in a way we can work together to protect American lives, both civilian and military.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration has declared war on Title IX protections for female athletes. They want to force American schools to allow biological men and boys to compete in women's sports. In fact, they show no intent to protect women at all. As a doctor, I know this is ridiculous. Where does it stop? What would it take for liberal women to stand up for themselves? Perhaps when all the scholarships for women are given to biological men, when all the female sports records are broken, all the medals are taken, all the awards stolen, and every woman of the year title or best actress Oscar is given to a man, perhaps then President Biden and his media allies will finally decide to enforce Title IX and protect young women. We are not going to wait around for them. I am proud to cosponsor the GOP bill to protect women's sports and save Title IX for America's female student athletes.

Mr. McCORMICK

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to H.R. 5.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss my amendment to H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act. I speak to all of you as a father of seven, an educator for 4 years, both in public and private schools, and a youth minister for over 20 years. It is important to note that as we discuss this legislation, we are not guaranteed just local control in our Constitution, but we are also guaranteed inalienable, individual rights even when inconvenient to the local government, because the ultimate minority we need to protect is the individual. For amendment No. 16, it clarifies H.R. 5's language to ensure parents have the guaranteed opportunity to address the school board regarding any violation of their parental rights. This right is implied within the bill but deserves stronger language. As we have seen too frequently across the country, including two counties within my district, concerned moms and dads have been silenced, thrown out, and threatened when standing up for their children. This is simply unacceptable. Amendment No. 16 serves as a form of accountability. We must ensure parents should be able to provide school boards with feedback to make necessary changes when the rights of the parents or the children are infringed upon. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, the attitude that only some parents should be considered, that only some parents should be heard, and that some parents should be arrested is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about the parents who were arrested for doing violent things, and that is a very rare exception. We keep on using these rare exceptions to make a rule. Clearly, there is a need for us to step up and represent these parents that are unheard, because when parents are told they cannot come before a school board, there is a reason for us to step up and take action. I think it is simply untrue to say that we already have laws that cover this and you already have access to your school board when clearly, just in my district alone, that right has been denied. That is what we are fighting over right now, a parent's right to address a school board when a school board says: Nope, I don't want to listen to you. That is what we are arguing about right now. If it weren't happening, I wouldn't be standing in front of you right now. In fact, I probably wouldn't have been elected, because this is one of the main things that parents want, are their rights back for them and their children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I take offense in thinking that mob rule is a parent standing up for their child. I take offense in thinking that teachers and school systems are the only ones that can say so. I take offense that just given the opportunity for a parent to give feedback to a school board is something other than the most representative sort of government that we have. The First Amendment allows us to speak openly against our government, against our elected officials, and to express our opinions freely, and that is what my amendment is about. There couldn't be any more constitutional amendment. There couldn't be any more freedom and democratic process. There couldn't be any more representative thing for your child than you. I am empowering you as a woman, as a mother; me as a father--all of us. This isn't just for Democrats or Republicans. This is for every parent to be able to speak freely to their representative body of governance for their schools. That is what this amendment is about. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 17 is a simple addition to H.R. 5 that states that parents have the right to be informed of any non-curriculum-based initiatives or events, and parents have the right to opt-in their child to such events, excluding birthday celebrations and Federal holidays. Examples of these events that my amendment seeks to address include: National French Week, Firefighter Appreciation Day, Democracy Day, or any other politically motivated or controversial extracurricular activities. Some of these activities are great. However, it is important that parents aren't simply aware of the activities their children are participating in, we also want to give parents the ability to be proactive in their child's education and especially their extracurricular activities. This is their right. This amendment has nothing to do with technical careers or college prep. It only applies to initiatives and events outside of the curriculum. The American Psychological Association has confirmed what common sense already tells us, which is that parental involvement in education is vital. Students with parents who are involved have a higher chance to get better grades and test scores, have better school attendance, and even better social outcomes. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.