Todd Rokita

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a notable Hoosier, Dr. Steven C. Beering, who is being honored by the Anti-Defamation League at the 2016 Man of Achievement Award Dinner in Indianapolis. The Anti-Defamation League's Man of Achievement Award was established to recognize individuals and companies who have demonstrated exceptional commitment to the community, justice and equal opportunity for all. Dr. Beering was chosen for this honor for his service to the state and nation. Dr. Beering was born in Berlin, Germany and raised in Hamburg. His family was interred by the Nazi's late during World War II and he served in a Bavarian labor camp with members of his family before being liberated by the allied forces. The family immigrated to the United States through Ellis Island. He served in the United States Air Force Medical Corps for 12 years, retiring as a Lt. Colonel. Dr. Beering earned his B.S. and M.D. from the University of Pittsburgh and served as the Dean of Medicine and Director of the Indiana University Medical Center before being named President at Purdue University where he served from 1983 to 2000. Dr. Beering has led on the national level as chairman of the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of American Universities. He is a former regent of the National Library of Medicine. He is a Fellow and Master of the American College of Physicians, a member of the Royal Society of Medicine, Phi Beta Kappa, Alpha Omega Alpha, the Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences, and the Indiana Academy. Dr. Beering has served on a number of national and corporate boards and is a Trustee at the University of Pittsburgh. I first met Dr. Beering while serving as Deputy Indiana Secretary of State and have been an admirer of his since. He is a great friend and confidant of mine, and a wonderful asset to our community, state and nation. I wish to congratulate him on this latest honor and thank him for his leadership at Purdue University, Indiana and our nation.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Howard County Sheriff's Deputy Carl Koontz, who was killed in the line of duty last Sunday. Deputy Koontz had strong ties to Howard County. He was a graduate of both Western High School in Russiaville and Indiana University Kokomo. As a member of the force, he served as a school resource officer, positively impacting the hundreds of students with whom he interacted on a daily basis. Deputy Koontz was also a husband and a father to an 8-month-old son, Noah. Noah will be celebrating Easter this Sunday without his father and will never know him. I offer my deepest and most heartfelt condolences for the family of Deputy Koontz during this time, and I thank him for all of his hard work and ultimate sacrifice. I also pray for the continued recovery of Sergeant Jordan Buckley, who was also injured on Sunday.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, let me just say on the Record that I greatly appreciate the leadership of our newer members of the Budget Committee, especially the member from Arkansas. I think the people of Arkansas were right to send him to Congress. Not only does he come ready to identify the spending problems that this country has, but he comes ready with solutions, too. And I think that is, in essence, Mr. Speaker, the definition of leadership. I thank the gentleman. I also thank the gentleman from Georgia who just spoke. He speaks so eloquently on so many subjects, a member of the Rules Committee. I am also very appreciative of his contribution to the Budget Committee. He, of course, as we all are today, and almost every day, unfortunately, was talking about the debt. And let me just put it in a pictorial form. This is the new red menace, Mr. Speaker. Look at that trajectory. It goes nearly vertical. So the question is: How do you turn that big ship, that Titanic, if you will, so, number one, it doesn't sink this entire country and, number two, it gets on a more meaningful, more productive course so that we can continue to be the world's best hope in a 21st century world? Now, some, especially those on the other side of the aisle, will immediately turn to the fact that there are two ways to, in fact, solve this problem. One is to control spending. The other is to grow revenue. Let me talk about the latter for just a second. The latter is a false choice because at 10,000 people a day retiring into unreformed social programs, that trajectory will not turn around, it will not plateau. No matter how much property you confiscate from the American people, Mr. Speaker, no matter how much you take in the form of taxes, with 10,000 people a day retiring in unreformed programs, can you get that to go down. So let's look at that more closely. This is what the Federal Government confiscates from the American people to run itself. In fiscal year 2015, it was $3.25 trillion, revenue we took in to run the operations of just the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, the American people know we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The question should be what can't you do? What can't you do, Mr. Speaker, with $3.25 trillion of property confiscated? More revenue is not the answer. Thankfully, the majority here in the House of Representatives doesn't think it is the answer either. We know we can do better. We know we have to do better for the American people. We know we have to control the spending. That is why I am very proud to be part of a committee, the Budget Committee, and part of a new crew that came, starting in 2011, that for every year we have put in a budget, a narrative, something that we don't legally have to do as part of the budget process, but we took the extra step to put a narrative in our budget to give the solutions that are needed to correct this debt problem, reforming Medicare, reforming Medicaid, putting us on a track that will reduce that red menace, that will plateau it, and start pointing it downward over the next generation. We took the political risk to have that conversation with the American people, and we have done it every year since 2011. Some people called it the third rail of politics. Touch it and you will be politically electrocuted. Well, we touched it, Mr. Speaker. And we touched the next year, and the next year, and the year after that. And my hope and my pledge is, on this House floor, that we will continue to have that conversation with the American people, backed up with votes that show, really, how to solve this problem. Mr. Speaker, I will refer us to the spending that I am talking about. This chart was used before by the gentleman from Arkansas. I will refer to it again. Here is what is on autopilot. Here is what needs to be reformed. And if you look at one piece of that pie there, Medicaid, a solution for that has been in our budget for the last 5 years. In the remaining time I have, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about that solution, a State flexibility grant, block grant, if you will. We have had that idea in our budget for the last 5 years. It is the idea that we in the Federal Government, we are going to get out of the business of Medicaid. We are going to get out of the business of deciding who is poor in terms of health care, what the poor need in terms of health care, or how the poor get it, that health care service. We are going to give it to the States, to individuals, to locally elected officials, people who know their communities better, in fact, than any Federal bureaucrat does; people who can determine, given a finite amount of money from us, their money back, in fact, what the poor need, who the poor really are, who the disabled really are, what they should get in terms of healthcare services, and how they should get it. Maybe, like the gentleman from Arkansas alluded to earlier, maybe there ought to be a work requirement for the able-bodied ones of them. Maybe there ought to be other conditions, but let the States decide what that would be, pressured, in a good way, by the fact that there would only be a finite amount of money coming from our budget. That would allow us to know exactly what we are in for, as a Federal Government, exactly what we are giving out, and not a cent more, and would naturally incentivize the States to innovate, to come up with better ways of service, to serve those who really need health care who can't get it any other way. And those who, in fact, are gaming the system will be naturally forced off. The States are in the best position to provide that when they are properly incentivized with a finite amount of money that doesn't grow over time. The Republican budget for the last 5 years, the one that has passed this House of Representatives, has done that very thing. We are on the right track. We need to continue these votes. We need to continue to have a budget. We need to continue to have stand-alone votes on these reforms to take this issue to the American people, especially in a Presidential election year when, frankly, the candidates, I haven't seen them talk enough about what is really on people's minds, and that is how they are going to leave their children and grandchildren with a better life than they have, when we are knowingly saddled with $19 trillion in debt, a very hard thing to do. In fact, I think this is the first generation in American history, Mr. Speaker, that is poised to leave the next generation worse off. I refuse to let that happen on this Budget Committee's watch, and that is why we are here today, that is why we are providing the leadership. I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a wonderful Hoosier, Mrs. Neva Bell. Today Neva Bell of Indianapolis, a true daughter of the State of Indiana attains the century mark of 100 years of age. Born in Monroe, Indiana in 1916, to Mr. and Mrs. E.F. Fricke, Neva attended Purdue University where she met her future husband Simeon Bell of Portland, the son of a Jay County, Indiana pioneer family. Neva and Simeon Bell both graduated from Purdue, married, and raised three children in Indiana. Neva now has 6 grandchildren and 7 great grandchildren. Over the years, Neva and Simeon Bell spent countless volunteer hours helping many Indiana institutions like the Indiana State Museum, the Eitlejorg Museum, the 500 Festival, and the Indianapolis Museum of Art. Neva and Simeon also maintained and improved the Bell family pioneer farm in Jay County, Indiana which is still in the family to this day. Neva lost her husband in 2005, but that hasn't stopped her from supporting her loved Indiana organizations. Over a lifetime Neva Bell has epitomized the strong, independent citizen that makes Indiana great. Let us join together today and wish Neva Bell a very Happy Birthday and a joyful and healthy year.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, the Declaration of Independence records for posterity the fact that we have been given by our Creator certain unalienable rights. Among these, of course, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights extend to all persons, even those who are physically with us, but yet unborn. Indeed, life inside a mother versus outside of her is ultimately a matter of geography. The rights of the unborn must be protected, and I believe we can never speak too strongly for those who cannot speak for themselves. Protecting life must be our top priority. This debate is more than a simple disagreement about making choices. It is a debate about fundamental, God-given rights, the first of which, of course, is the right to life. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this House, the people's House, has no higher duty than to protect human life, no matter how big or how small it is or where it may be located. As we approach the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I pray for all the families in our Nation who have chosen life and for all the life that we have lost.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, any constitutional lawyer should know that Congress is supposed to write the laws and the executive branch is supposed to follow them, as written. Implementing more gun control through executive fiat is not what is needed, and it is not what is legal. Enforcement of the current law is what is needed by this executive, and it is what this President should be doing. Instead, for example, he lets prisoners out of jail to contribute to the violence. Mr. Speaker, the right to self-defense is God-given. It is vital in order to protect people and property against criminals, and it is a hedge against tyrants, and it shall not be infringed. To those who would challenge these rights, Mr. Speaker, I leave you with these words: ``A well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Price for his leadership. I am very proud of the work that the committee has done to get us to this point--one vote away from this bill getting to the President's desk-- because then the President will finally have a chance to right one of the wrongs which bears his name and to stop the horrific and unethical medical practices occurring at Planned Parenthood. This reconciliation bill repeals a number of onerous taxes created by the Affordable Care Act. Taxes have slowed the economic recovery, which means ObamaCare literally keeps people in my district, whom I care deeply about, from getting jobs. This bill represents the economic development bill the last speaker spoke of. And ObamaCare increases health insurance costs for most Americans. So instead of spending more on their families over Christmas, people in Indiana and all over this country paid more to insurance companies instead, all because of ObamaCare. This repeal bill will save Americans $516 billion over the next 10 years, money they can spend as they see fit instead of how Washington Democrats dictated at the end of 2009. These are important steps to returning our healthcare system to us, where decisions are made by Americans and their doctors, not the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, in districts such as mine, many of the plans sold on the ObamaCare government exchange are classified as small or extra small, meaning that, in many cases, less than 10 percent of the doctors in the area are accessible to these families. This means that many Indiana families have had to give up their doctor and, in some cases, travel an hour or more just to get basic medical attention. Timothy Gerking of Danville, Indiana, has seen his insurance costs for a family of three increase from $400 a month in 2012 to over $1,200 a month in 2016, along with higher deductibles and copays. How is he supposed to save for college for his kids? How is he supposed to plan for retirement if he is paying $14,000 a year in premiums? This is all despite the President's promise that ``if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.'' That was an outright lie to the American people then, and ObamaCare is still one of the most insidious laws ever produced today. The President now has a chance to correct the wrong that he and the Democrats have done to millions of Americans. I hope that opportunity is taken by him when it gets to his desk.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I recognize Chairman Kline especially for the work he has done over a long period of time, 7 years or so, bringing this House, this Congress, to where we are today. It truly is leadership at its best. Mr. Speaker, let's face it. No Child Left Behind's high-stakes testing, which requires every child to be caught up to grade level within 1 year, is simply unworkable, as well-intentioned as it may have been. Currently, the Secretary of Education, through waivers, can run schools by executive fiat, imposing requirements on State testing standards and conditioning receipt of Federal funds on adopting Common Core standards. It's time for a positive change, and that change is the Every Student Succeeds Act. This bill, as pointed out here, as The Wall Street Journal puts it, is the largest transfer of Federal control, Mr. Speaker, to the States in 25 years, where this authority and opportunity frankly belongs. This bill empowers States, and it ends the federally mandated high- stakes testing, which is the core, which is the heart of No Child Left Behind, which is causing all the stress that we see from our teachers, our school administrators, our parents, and especially our students. If it produced the results that we intended, maybe that is one thing. But all it is producing is stress and an unworkable situation. The people who best know how to test, how long to test, what to test, et cetera, et cetera, are our parents, our teachers, our voters, our taxpayers, our local school administrators. Let them have this responsibility back. It provides flexibility so voters and taxpayers, through their locally elected officials, can decide for themselves what success looks like. It recognizes that, when it comes to determining academic standards, States, school administrators, and parents know what is best. It is time we put our children first so we can compete in a global, 21st-century world and win again. It is time we trust parents, teachers, and local education leaders more than we trust Federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. This bill is a huge step in that direction. I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to support it.

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer the following Joint Statement of Legislative Intent on the Conference Report to accompany S. 1177, the Every Student Succeeds Act, on behalf of myself and Mr. John Kline, Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee. Joint Statement of Legislative Intent on Conference Report to accompany S. 1177, the Every Student Succeeds Act Like our colleagues, we support this conference report because we believe states and school districts should be left to set their own education priorities. The House-passed bill included strong prohibitions that clearly did just that. The conference report maintains strong, unprecedented prohibitions on the Secretary of Education. For example, Section 1111(e) clearly states the Secretary may not add any requirements or criteria outside the scope of this act, and further says the Secretary may not ``be in excess of statutory authority given to the Secretary.'' This section goes on to lay out specific terms the Secretary cannot prescribe, sets clear limits on the guidance the Secretary may offer, and also clearly states that the Secretary is prohibited from defining terms that are inconsistent with or outside the scope of this Act. Then there are provisions in Titles I and VIII that ensure standards and curriculum are left to the discretion of states without federal control or mandates, and the same is true for assessments. Finally, the conference report also includes a Sense of Congress that states and local educational agencies retain the right and responsibility of determining educational curriculum, programs of instruction, and assessments. The conference report makes it clear the Secretary is not to put any undue limits on the ability of states to determine their accountability systems, their standards, or what tests they give their students. The clear intent and legislative language of this report devolves authority over education decisions back to the states and severely limits the Secretary's ability to interfere in any way. Ensuring a limited role for the U.S. Secretary of Education was a critically important priority throughout the reauthorization process and this agreement meets that priority. For example, the Secretary may not limit the ability of states to determine how the measures of student performance are weighted within state accountability systems. The Secretary also cannot prescribe school support and improvement strategies, or any aspect of a state's teacher evaluation system, or the methodology used to differentiate schools in a state. Also, the Secretary may not create new policy by creatively defining terms in the law. Let us say definitively, as the Chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee and Subcommittee Chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, this new law reins in the Secretary and ensures state and local education officials make the decisions about their schools under this new law. Over the past few years, the Secretary has exceeded his authority by placing conditions on waivers to states and local educational agencies. The conference report prevents the Secretary from applying any new conditions on waivers or the state plans required in the law by including language that clearly states the Secretary may not add any new conditions for the approval of waivers or state plans that are outside the scope of the law. In plain English, this means if the law does not give the Secretary the authority to require something, then he may not unilaterally create an ability to do that. We are glad to be able to support a bill that will return control to states, where it should always be, and appreciate the strong support of colleagues as well.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman not only for the time, but for his leadership on the committee and in helping bring the bill to the point it is today. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a new product. It has been around for about 10 years. But it hasn't gone as far as it has gone today. That is a compliment to all of the proponents of the bill, to Members like Kristi Noem, who has talked earlier and who had this bill in the past, to Members like Chairman John Kline, who has carried it in the past, and all the way back to J.D. Hayworth. We thank them all for getting us here. I, for one, am a Member who has picked up this product and has run with it to help get it here. I have been to 13 tribal communities this year alone, understanding what the problems are with this activist Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board. That is why this bill is so popular, and in my talking with nearly every Member of this body, that is why so many Members have supported it. I expect and would ask for a strong vote today for sovereignty, for parity. Mr. Speaker, the history is this: The National Labor Relations Act was silent as to tribal communities in terms of being regulated as an employer. State governments and local governments were specifically exempted from the act. Then, because of an error in a court decision as well as an activist Department of Labor, we are in this position where the jurisdiction of tribal communities under the act has now been invented. This bill corrects that and says in no uncertain terms--and very explicitly in just three pages--that tribal communities are to be exempted from the act if they are to be sovereign. All we are asking for is parity with State and local governments. Let me give you an example. Let's say you have a municipally owned and operated golf course in your community--or if it were a State government, then it would be the State government, owned by the State--and that municipality didn't want to have union activities and it wrote its own set of rules for its employees. That would be fine under the act. By not allowing the very same right or luxury to a tribal government, we are treating them unlike other State and local governments. That is why in this context they are not sovereign. That is why this bill is needed. The gentleman from Wisconsin who just spoke reminds us that there are agencies in this bill that aren't covered. I would say to him: What a great idea for tribal labor sovereignty, act two. But the logic that just because every agency isn't covered under what is only meant to cover the NLRA somehow negates the good that this bill does--the right answer that comes with a ``yes'' vote--is ridiculous. Just because it doesn't do everything doesn't mean you can't do anything. So I would say to the Members of this body, on that fact alone, you should vote ``yes.'' It is also true that many tribal communities have unions, that many tribal communities have rules that govern their labor and employees, and those who want to oppose this bill, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, simply want to insert their judgments, their biases, for their preferred rule or for their preferred union in place of duly elected members of a tribal government. So I would say to those opponents: What makes you smarter than the people who elect the tribal government? What makes you better and your judgment superior to those who have been duly elected by the members of a tribal nation? The fact of the matter is the arguments that have been made by the opposition do not apply to what is right here. The right thing is to ask ourselves: Are tribal communities sovereign or are they not? Should they at least be in parity with State and local governments or should they not? I would say, Mr. Speaker, to every Member here and remind everybody-- Republican, Democrat--that this is a bipartisan bill. We just had two Democrat Members speak in favor of this bill. If you want to do what is right--if you believe in the sovereignty of tribal communities, if you believe they should at least have the same parity, judgment, and authority as State and local governments do--then you should vote ``yes'' on H.R. 511. I urge all Members to do that, Republican and Democrat.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 602. I was meeting, for the first time, my Chief of Staff's baby son and missed the vote on Mr. King's amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, as a rank-and-file Member--that is, a Member who is not on the Financial Services Committee--I want to stand in strong support of this amendment. There are a lot of us who are looking for a way forward in this, and this reform would allow that to happen. We don't know whether the private sector would work or not, because those who are seeking lending aren't forced to ask. I find it laughable that some say this would be too onerous on a bank or on someone who is seeking lending. These are the same people who think that Dodd-Frank regulations are okay, that they aren't too onerous. I think that is ridiculous. Last week, we were afforded the choice of an unreformed Ex-Im Bank or no Ex-Im Bank. This amendment and the ones being brought up tonight that are like it offer us a third way: commonsense reforms that would allow the private sector to work and then would allow the Ex-Im Bank to be a function of last resort, preserving the jobs that we all care about. No one on this floor, Republican or Democrat, wants to kill a job. That is ridiculous. So, as a rank-and-file Member who is off committee, I stand in support of the Mulvaney amendment, and I ask for its support.

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chair, regarding reforms, looking at the underlying legislation that we dealt with last week, those reforms either already existed, have been in place and been ignored by the Ex-Im Bank--we have been waiting several years since the last time I voted against the Ex- Im Bank for these reforms, and they don't do it; they have been ignored--or it is ignorance or malfeasance regarding traditional or standard business or Bank practices. I stand in favor of this amendment because this proposal would prevent the Ex-Im Bank from providing financing to any foreign company or joint venture that benefits from government support when that joint venture's country also has a sovereign wealth fund over $100 billion. Why in the world would we want to subsidize a joint venture that has or could have state backing from its own country? Now, if we enacted this reform for fiscal year 2014, applying this provision would have resulted in an estimated reduction of approximately $3.1 billion or only 15 percent of the Bank's total authorizations, far from killing it, but, again, allowing a needed reform that isn't in the underlying legislation we dealt with this week. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. It is important for Congress to give the term ``critical commerce corridor'' meaning. We have seen the dangers of leaving terms undefined and of relying on the agency to create a definition that could be nowhere near what Congress intended. Again, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of their hard work. Indiana is known as the Crossroads of America, and the CCC concept actually comes from Indiana and, in part, Purdue Universities. I thank the chairman for his commitment that the critical commerce corridor concept is defined appropriately in the legislation as we go through the process.

Mr. ROKITA. I thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and the chairmen and ranking members of the subcommittees for their excellent work on this. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the certainty, flexibility, and power this legislation gives back to our States, and I look forward to supporting it. I would like to focus on a voluntary, multiple-use program that is in this bill. It is an innovative way to give States more flexibility that is commensurate with the design of this bill. Critical commerce corridors, otherwise known as CCCs, use our existing interstate system to provide for the physical separation of passenger vehicles from commercial motor vehicles, dedicated on-and-off ramps, and freight exchange centers for the movement of freight between and among modes of transportation. These lanes are constructed with a physical separation of passenger and commercial motor freight, and they would be structurally enhanced to handle dedicated freight traffic. This promotes a greater level of safety while making the movement of freight traffic more efficient. Unfortunately, this very definition of ``CCC'' isn't in the bill's language, although committee staff have been working on it in a very bipartisan manner, and I thank them for it. Mr. Chairman, you have heard on multiple occasions what CCCs are. Is this program something that you and other leaders who have worked on this bill can support? I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Price, as well as the entire Committee on the Budget, for getting us to this point, the first time in over a decade that we have been able to use the reconciliation process. Just like the other gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) stated, what a difference the way we are using it now in this bipartisan fashion, in a transparent lie today, a long process, not the day before Christmas Eve and not in a partisan way. That was used the last time regarding a major healthcare change of policy in this country. I think all of us deserve to not only pat ourselves, quite honestly, a little bit on the back, but also take advantage of this moment to end the lie, the lie being, ``If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.'' That lie continues today, and it has become a full-blown nightmare. Getting this reconciliation package to the President's desk is real and a real positive step in ending government-controlled health care in this country so that patients of whatever condition in a consumer- based, consumer-centered fashion can use their own judgment, their own resources, along with the help of all of us, to get the health care that they need. I doubt that 15 million people are actually covered better today than they were or could have been before. That should be our goal: to cover every American in the fashion that they deserve, in the fashion that they choose, with the doctor that they choose. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership. I urge my colleagues to vote for this reconciliation package.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I rise today in simple, but strong, support for H.R. 692, the Default Prevention Act. This commonsense bill makes clear that the United States and those who vote on the floor of this Chamber prioritize our debt and our Social Security payments over our reckless government and otherwise irresponsible spending. With this bill, we take the hysteria out of our spending debate and codify the integrity of our Nation's full faith and credit. And I would say, Madam Speaker, that those that appear to oppose this bill really and truly at the end of the day need the hysteria that surrounds this issue to not go away simply so political points around this issue can continue to be made. Now, here is a real scary point, not political at all. Today, as we stand here, our national debt stands in excess of $18 trillion. Yet, according to the Congressional Budget Office, government revenues were $3.25 trillion for fiscal year 2015 alone. With $3.25 trillion revenue coming in, ladies and gentlemen, we do not have a revenue problem. But with $18 trillion in debt, we certainly have a spending problem. We must get to the root of it, and this bill is a responsible step forward. It is a responsible step forward because it truly takes the politics of this debt and this hysteria off the table so that we can see as American people and as a Congress so that we can be exposed to the problems so that we can face it and, ultimately, so that we can solve it. That is what we came to Washington to do. I think a little bit all of us did. For me, it is the majority of why I came to Washington, so that our tough decisions can be faced, met, resolved, and we can ultimately reduce this debt so that our children and grandchildren in the here and now and yet to come don't have to be the first and second generations in American history that are left worse off.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership in bringing this excellent bill to the floor. This bill--of which, in full disclosure, I am an original cosponsor of--will continue to promote school choice and provide Opportunity scholarships to D.C. students that are most in need, while also expanding D.C. Public Charter Schools, therefore providing more opportunities for Washington students to excel and set themselves up for productive and successful lives. Now, to date, the Opportunity Scholarship Program has been an educational lifeline for more than 6,000 children from very low-income D.C. families, and more than 16,000 have applied to participate since the 2004-05 school year. Quite simply put, this program works. It is no secret I am a big proponent of school choice. As chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee, I have heard about the challenges many students in schools are facing, and I firmly believe that when parents have a choice, kids have a chance. This program, which has helped pave the way for others like it across the country, gives that chance, and it creates a healthy competition that causes all schools to improve, therefore helping all students, even those who aren't in the program. As I have seen in my home State of Indiana and across this great country touring schools and visiting classrooms, Opportunity scholarships provide students a hand up in improving their lives, their family's lives, and their communities. That is why we have a moral obligation to pass this legislation and why I urge my colleagues to join me and join the others here on the floor in reauthorizing the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Mr. Chairman, a great education is a great equalizer. It opens doors to unlimited possibilities and provides students the tools that they need to succeed in life.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, a constituent, Ms. Debora Avgerinos, visited me the other day. She owns a restaurant in Brownsburg, Indiana, and she was perplexed about this agreement. One of the things she mentioned was that in her restaurant OSHA, the EPA, and anyone else from the Federal Government can come and inspect her at any time with no notice. Such is the case with this upside-down administration. Our own Americans can be inspected at any time. Yet, when it comes to the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism, we can't inspect them at all. We have to go through a third party and wait at least 24 days. Common sense turned upside down. Except in this case, Mr. Speaker, it is with grave danger to Americans and grave danger to our friend, Israel. Now, the President said it is either this deal or war, and, in fact, there is no other deal, and I think that is patently false. In fact, I believe that this deal will, in all likelihood, bring war. And why do I think that? Well, we are putting $150 billion back in the hands of Iranians, and I want to know: Who here thinks that they are going to build hospitals? Who here thinks they are going to use that $150 billion to help Iranians? They are going to use it for ``death to America.'' Please vote against this deal.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for supporting the amendment. The reasons he is supporting are completely wrong. We have increased Federal spending, as the gentleman knows, on education over 300 percent since the Federal Government has been involved. And guess what, Mr. Chairman, the results have been flat-lined. This bill does anything but take from the poor and give to the rich. In fact, it ensures that civil rights are protected and that children, whatever socioeconomic background, aren't left behind, but they have the opportunity to succeed in the 21st century and win. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ROKITA. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), who is new to this Congress but is already making this mark. He has coauthored this amendment with me.

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

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It shortens authorization of the act from 6 years to 4 years. I am very thankful for the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for his work in leading this effort. Mr. Chairman, it is the role of Congress to conduct oversight of Federal programs and regularly revisit the results of taxpayer investments. We began a process to replace No Child Left Behind 4 years ago, and our goal from the beginning has always been to roll back the Federal Government's authority over K-12 schools and return to State and local education leaders the responsibility and opportunity to deliver a quality education to their students. Now, the Student Success Act is a strong conservative proposal that reflects our shared principles for reducing the Federal role, restoring local control, and empowering individuals, not government bureaucrats. Reducing the authorization to 4 years will give Congress and the next administration a chance to ensure that these bold reforms are actually working as intended. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota, Chairman Kline, the chairman of the full Education and Workforce Committee. He has been a leader in the area of working on these issues for a lot more than 4 years.

Mr. ROKITA

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership, the gentleman from Washington, and the members of the Committee on Rules for bringing this rule to the floor. I think it is a good rule. I urge a ``yes'' vote on it and the underlying bill, which I am hopeful and pleased we are going to get to today. In response to some of the last speakers, first of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of Ms. Stefanik from New York. She is right on. This is exactly the kind of policy and law that we need in this country at this particular time because it puts the trust and the personal responsibility back in the hands of the people where it belongs; and that is our parents, our teachers, our school principals, and superintendents. How arrogant for anyone to think that we here in Washington know better how to raise our children than those children's parents, working hand in hand, side by side, with that child's teacher and school leaders. This bill is needed. It is right on point. It is needed for the 21st century, and I want to address some of the misinformation that might be out there. First of all, I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the civil rights protections, which I agree with my friend, the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, are very, very important--critical. That is all kept here. That language remains because it is essential. Secondly, we mandate disaggregated data so that we can see from a holistic, collective standpoint how our children of whatever ethnic background are doing. That is very important. That is kept. Title I is there. There is some more portability, but we think that is a good thing because choice in this subject is a good thing. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this isn't about money. Federal spending in education has gone up 300 percent since the Federal Government got involved in this business, and test results are flat. It is not about money. It is about leadership. The best way to empower leaders is to give them the tools that they need so that they can help our children grow and compete in the 21st century world and win. That is exactly what the Student Success Act does. It trusts teachers and parents over Washington bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, I ask for full support from this House for the rule and for the underlying legislation.