Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this Congressional Review Act resolution on behalf of the thousands of fellow Kentuckians who have lost their jobs in the coal industry.

In eastern Kentucky, not far from where I live, it is not just a recession that they are experiencing. What is happening in eastern Kentucky is a little depression over the last several years. The stream protection rule would be the final death knell of a proud industry that has literally powered America for over a century.

When I talk to the men and women of eastern Kentucky about the prospects of losing even more jobs in an economically depressed place, it is just absolutely devastating. So I applaud the work of the committee and I applaud the work of this House to take this matter seriously to end this regulation that would put even more of my fellow Kentuckians in economic distress.

Instead of looking at environmental questions as a matter of the need to have more government central planning, let's solve environmental problems in a different way, through innovation and technology.

Mr. Speaker, section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Securities and Exchange Commission--an agency not charged with the responsibility of carrying out American foreign policy--to promulgate a resource extraction issuer disclosure rule. That regulation, which is the subject of today's resolution, requires publicly traded U.S. firms to disclose payments that they make to governments for the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or mineral resources.

The intent of the rule, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle point out, is to allow local populations to see how much revenue is generated by their natural resources; but, in practice, if fully implemented, this rule will have a very negative impact on Americans and on the people it is purported to help.

First, the rule puts American firms at a severe competitive disadvantage, and we have talked about this before. Because section 1504 applies only to companies that are listed on U.S. exchanges, it forces them to disclose payments in detail in a way that would put them at a competitive disadvantage to non-U.S. companies, like those located in China. The SEC estimates that the initial cost of compliance for U.S. firms could be as high as $700 million and that the ongoing costs could be as large as $591 million annually. That is $591 million that American businesses could be putting to better and more productive use, like in creating jobs and investing in their workers. The SEC, itself, admitted that compliance costs would result in diverting capital away from other productive opportunities.

In addition, these disclosures will include sensitive commercial proprietary information and trade secrets that foreign state-owned competitors can use against American firms, and 50 percent of the firms that are likely to be obligated to comply with this rule are smaller reporting companies. While larger firms can more easily adjust their financial reporting systems in order to collect the required data or can even alter their business models to make the rule less burdensome, the smaller firms that will be forced to comply with this rule will have a very difficult time. This will lead to a consolidation in the industry, to a reduction in competition, and to higher prices for American consumers.

These projects are often carried out in countries with underdeveloped economies. As a result, they provide much-desired work for local populations, and they help improve the standard of living in the area, lifting many people out of poverty. This rule will stifle economic development in areas that need it most, potentially limiting the ability of these regions to thrive.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is not about investor protection. Instead, it is going to undermine capital formation, and it is going to hurt smaller firms, and it is going to hurt jobs in this country. The Securities and Exchange Commission, as it admits itself, is not in a position to conduct American foreign policy. Let's leave this to the State Department, and let's focus on SEC rules that are core to its mission: investor protection and capital formation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a very special group of Kentuckians. They are the Walker family; Arthur, Sr. (Deceased), Arthur, Jr., Art III and Bryce Walker. They make up the Walker Company, which was created in 1933 and whose corporate office is located in Montgomery County, Kentucky.

The Walker Company has been chosen by Gateway Area Development District to receive the Regional Outstanding Business for 2016 Award. They have been a major employer over the years, employing hundreds of people and enabling them to provide a good living for their families.

The Walker family has made many philanthropic contributions, mostly anonymously, to needy projects over the years, including GED programs, scholarships for students, and the recent BuildSmart Campaign of the MCTC new Rowan Campus. The Walkers were instrumental in the location of the Maysville Community Technical College Satellite location in Mt. Sterling.

The Walkers support recreation and sports in many ways. They have been involved since the beginning with Easy Walker Park in Montgomery County, where thousands of children

across many states have enjoyed the park facilities. They also worked with Menifee County on their new Little League Baseball field, where 70 children play every day for most of the year.

Disaster assistance is no stranger to the Walkers. If a major event happens in a surrounding county, they drop everything and will even pull off of a job and bring their equipment and operators to help open roads, clear debris, just to help their neighbors. Morgan and Menifee Counties can both attest to this when the tornadoes hit in 2012.

The Walkers give of their time to serve on boards on the local, state and federal level and share their business expertise and professional engineering experience with others. The Walker Company members continue to be remembered for their generosity and I am honored to recognize them before the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, for his leadership not only of the Republican Study Committee as the new chairman--and I welcome you as the new chairman of the Republican Study Committee--but for his leadership on issues related to the importance of repealing this disastrous law that is making life harder on the American people; and not just repealing it, but replacing it with policy ideas that put power back in the hands of patients, their families, and their doctors instead of driving up costs, forcing people to lose their healthcare plans, forcing the government to ration health care. We need a better way.

I am proud to say that we are supporting not just repealing ObamaCare here tonight, but bringing to the American people some constructive, positive ideas that will make life easier for them and improve their lives through better patient-centered health care.

Mr. Speaker, Kentucky was once portrayed by President Obama, a red State, as a model of the implementation of ObamaCare. Yet, every day in Kentucky, in my district in central and eastern Kentucky, I hear stories from families and small businesses and individuals who have been hurt by this disastrous law.

Now, over the next few weeks, as President-elect Trump comes into office and as this Congress revisits the issue of healthcare reform, I expect we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle, arguments like ``Don't repeal ObamaCare. We have 20 million new Americans who have insurance.''

But that statistic needs to be scrutinized because the truth of the matter is ObamaCare forced people to lose their health care. In many cases, and in Kentucky as an example, many of my constituents lost high-quality, private, commercial health insurance through their workplace, and millions of Americans received cancellation notices in the mail. Their small employers told them that they were going to have to change their health plans because of this law.

So not only do we see now skyrocketing costs for those who currently have health insurance, but many Americans who our friends on the other side of the aisle say now are insured or covered, these are folks who lost their health insurance before.

What happened?

They lost high-quality, job-based health insurance, and so they were forced into these exchanges. In Kentucky it was called Kynect. In many cases, they went to the cheapest plan available, which happened to be Medicaid. Well, my fellow Americans, access to a waiting line is not access to health care. Unfortunately, Medicaid is oftentimes access to a waiting line, and it is not access to true health care.

President Obama's promise that his healthcare law would help people has not turned out to be the case. In terms of cost, remember, this is called the Affordable Care Act, but it is anything but affordable because even though he promised that premiums would decline

by $2,500 a year for the average family, premiums have actually increased for hardworking Americans. Premiums have increased for 11 million people, according to a report by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Millions of Americans, as I said before, lost previous coverage or had to change doctors due to this disastrous law.

Take, for example, Laura in my congressional district in Kentucky. Laura is a young mother who had a baby girl, Catherine. Catherine was diagnosed with a congenital heart defect, ventricular septal defect at birth, which is basically a hole in the wall of the heart. They needed high-quality pediatric cardiology to help Catherine. So they got a specialist at Boston Children's Hospital. Of course, a long way away from Kentucky, but they wanted the best, of course, for their daughter. When ObamaCare went into effect, unfortunately they lost their job- based health insurance that allowed them to access these specialists up in Boston for Catherine. The result was, they lost their doctor.

What do you think a young mother and a young father are going to do in that situation?

Guess what, they had to find a very expensive policy to cover a Boston surgeon out of network out of State, and so their costs skyrocketed.

This is the kind of thing that was happening to millions of Americans as a result of ObamaCare.

Look, ObamaCare obviously reduced choice and competition. There are now only three plans participating in the ObamaCare exchange in Kentucky, one of which covers a full 78 percent of the State's individual marketplace enrollees. In many States there is only one plan on the exchange. This has left too many families with no choice but to purchase high-deductible, high-premium coverage. In Kentucky, insurance plans have been forced to raise premiums by 23 percent in 2017 alone.

There is a better way, and the better way is healthcare reform that is focused on the patient, not putting bureaucrats in charge, not taking away choices, not driving up costs, not creating narrow networks for people, not forcing people out of their high-quality private health insurance into government-run health care, but, instead, empowering patients to access more affordable private coverage.

And one of the ways we can lower the cost of health care, make it more affordable for people to access high-quality private health insurance, is medical malpractice reform.

Frivolous lawsuits, junk lawsuits, have driven up the cost of health care in this country significantly. One of the fatal flaws of ObamaCare is that it never addressed this cost of healthcare inflation.

Over the course of their careers, it is estimated that 75 percent of all physicians will face a malpractice claim. Now, to be sure, some of those cases of medical negligence are legitimate. And, of course, those plaintiffs should be able to fully recover damages for those cases of genuine actual malpractice. But for these frivolous lawsuits, that is driving up the cost of care. The fact that ObamaCare never even dealt with that issue is a fundamental flaw in the previous efforts to reform our healthcare system.

So I am a proud cosponsor of the Republican Study Committee's America Health Care Reform Act. In the American Health Care Reform Act is legislation that I introduced with Senator Barrasso called the Saving Lives, Saving Costs Act. This doesn't cap damages for cases of actual malpractice, but if there is a frivolous claim, if the liability climate is producing frivolous lawsuits, what we say is this: If you are a hospital or a doctor or a nurse and you practice in accordance with peer reviewed, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, that there should be a higher standard of proof for that plaintiff to get to a jury trial.

We want a safe harbor for our outstanding medical professionals who practice in accordance with the latest state-of-the-art guidelines on how to take care of patients.

So this does two things. Number one, it raises the standard of care. We are helping people access better, higher-quality medicine in this country with this legislation; and we are cutting out frivolous lawsuits, this litigation lottery that is driving up the cost of health care for all Americans.

This is the kind of reform that, if enacted, would replace ObamaCare with reforms that would actually lower the cost of health care without growing government.

I applaud the efforts of the Republican Study Committee for offering real solutions that will put patients and doctors in charge again and not Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule governing these pieces of legislation and, in particular, the underlying legislation, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS Act, H.R. 26.

Mr. Speaker, during the first two terms that I have served in this Congress, the most common question posed to me by my constituents in central and eastern Kentucky is: What is the biggest surprise that you have confronted as a Member of Congress?

Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, the biggest surprise that I have discovered as a Member of Congress is that Congress is no longer in charge. Regrettably, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in the executive branch run the country.

Most of the laws that are enacted in this country at the Federal level come out of unelected bureaucrats in administrative agencies in the executive branch. Members of Congress, even though we are elected by the American people to be the lawmaking branch under Article I of the Constitution, we can't stop it. We can't stop these rules and regulations.

So I am proud to have consistently supported the REINS Act because it reasserts the powers of this body and this Congress under Article I of the Constitution, which provides: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be invested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''

What does this mean?

The most important word in Article I of the Constitution is that first substantive word, ``all,'' implying that none of the legislative powers should be in any other branch of the Federal Government, and it certainly shouldn't be exercised by the executive branch. We know this as the nondelegation doctrine, the principle that Congress may not and should not delegate its administrative power to administrative agencies.

The nondelegation doctrine forces a politically accountable Congress to make policy choices rather than leave this to unelected administrative officials. Yet what we have seen over the last several decades, and especially over the last 8 years, has been the rise of an unaccountable, out-of-control administrative state. Over time, legislative powers that are vested exclusively in Congress by the Constitution have been increasingly and unconstitutionally claimed, assumed, and exercised by the executive branch.

Now unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats decide how you work, what goods and services you can buy and sell, and what you can do with your own property, all without accountability at the ballot box. So this state of affairs is fundamentally in conflict with the foundational, constitutional principle that Congress alone possesses the Federal legislative power.

Look, this has enormous economic consequences. It is costly to our economy, and I don't have to go into that. The estimates are $1.8 trillion in costs to the American economy. But the bigger issue is that none of these rules from these agencies have been approved--let alone, even considered--by Congress, even though they have a profound impact on the economy. So the measure we are considering today would simply require those regulations with the greatest economic impact to be approved by both Houses of Congress prior to their implementation.

This has two positive outcomes. First, obviously, it has the effect of blocking costly rules. Secondly, and more importantly, it will no longer allow Members of Congress to delegate their constitutional responsibility to the executive branch.

I will conclude, I heard my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, make the argument that Congress is not even interested in these regulations and we are not capable of seriously reviewing these rules. This is about making sure that experts with specialized expertise in the executive branch review and promulgate these rules. But what are we doing here if

that is true? We should turn out the lights, lock the door and leave, and give the keys of the government to the executive branch.

We had a Democratic administration over the last 8 years. We have a Republican administration coming. This is not about Republicans and Democrats. This is not a partisan issue. This is about the integrity of the institution of Congress. Let's stand up for the Congress and pass the REINS Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a World War II icon, U.S. Marine Private First Class Franklin R. Sousley, of Fleming County, Kentucky.

A graduate of Fleming County High School, Sousley chose to enlist in the Marine Corps where he was assigned to Company E, 2nd Battalion, as a rifleman.

Private First Class Sousley landed on Iwo Jima on February 19, 1945. During the intense fighting, American forces secured Mount Suribachi. Shortly thereafter, Sousley, alongside five other fellow servicemembers, raised a large U.S. flag, so it could be seen over the island.

An iconic photograph taken during this raising of the U.S. flag led to an immortalized symbol of the American bravery, perseverance, and sacrifice endured by members of the U.S. Armed Forces during the intense battles of World War II.

Sadly, soon after this photograph was taken, Sousley was killed in combat by a Japanese sniper. His remains were laid to rest in the Elizaville Cemetery in Fleming County, Kentucky, in my district.

Private First Class Sousley paid the ultimate sacrifice defending freedom for generations; however, his memory lives on in the timeless photograph in the image depicted in the Iwo Jima Memorial outside of Washington, D.C., and through the gratitude of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), my friend, for his leadership on this issue and for leading this special hour. I also want to thank my friend from Texas for honoring our colleague Sam Johnson, a true American hero who, through his service and sacrifice, his time in the Hanoi Hilton, his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, really showcased what it means to be a great patriot and an American hero willing to sacrifice for his fellow countrymen and for the freedom that we all enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of central and eastern Kentucky, I, too, rise today to recognize the 42nd anniversary of the release of American prisoners of war from Vietnam. I would like to honor the brave men and women who courageously wore our Nation's cloth and made great sacrifices in the name of freedom.

As I walk into my congressional office, I am reminded every day of all the American servicemembers that never returned home from past wars by the POW flag that I proudly display outside of my office.

Since the beginning of the Revolutionary War, Kentuckians have continued to answer our Nation's call to service. In fact, over 125,000 Kentuckians courageously and unselfishly served during the Vietnam era, and the people of Kentucky honor those who fought and died in Vietnam by commissioning the Kentucky Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which overlooks Kentucky's beautiful State capitol building in Frankfort. I would also like to recognize the organizations that keep the memories of those who have sacrificed much for our country alive, organizations such as Task Force Omega of Kentucky, Rolling Thunder, and the Kentucky Patriot Guard, who constantly remind us to never forget the servicemembers who have perished and have not yet returned home from Vietnam and other wars fought on foreign soil.

While being held captive, American POWs found strength in each other, and as Congressman Dold and Congressman Olson pointed out, those taps were the way that those men in that prison kept each other's spirits alive. Through their struggle, they found resilience; through their faith, they found comfort; and through their patriotism, they found hope. We are so grateful to have these servicemembers home. As we know all too well from recent events in the Middle East, not all prisoners of war make it back to their family members alive, but we owe all of them a debt of gratitude.

Unlike the veterans of World War II, Iraq, the Persian Gulf war or Afghanistan, those who served in Vietnam had a very different and unfortunate experience, many of them, when they returned home. Some were advised to change into civilian clothes and avoid contact with protestors, and it really hurt. They didn't deserve it. They deserve better. So for all of those veterans of the Vietnam war, including those who were POWs, we welcome them home because they deserve our respect, and they deserve to be welcomed home to a grateful nation.

American servicemembers found hope in the fact that a grateful nation would not leave them behind and would do everything possible to bring them home. We, as Americans, still stand behind that promise today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for the opportunity to honor the 42nd anniversary of the release of American POWs from Vietnam.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, today I rise in support of H.R. 240, providing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year. This legislation provides the funding necessary to ensure that all of the Department's critical missions have the resources necessary to be dutifully executed.

But I also rise in support of the amendments to this legislation. And when considering the amendments that were made in order, I am reminded of

the feelings of pride and patriotism that I witness when I attend naturalization ceremonies in my home district. When new citizens raise their right hand and recite the Oath of Allegiance, the aura of achievement and opportunity is palpable. These immigrants-turned- citizens have come to the country the right way. They have followed the rules, and they have earned that feeling of achievement.

But it is America that benefits. These immigrants embody and have displayed the values we hold most dear: hard work, integrity, perseverance, and a commitment to be a contributing member of the American society.

I strongly support these amendments because we are expressing the sense of Congress in these amendments that we respect naturalized citizens; we honor their hard work and dedication to the legal immigration and naturalization process. We should hold these new citizens up as models for how to immigrate to this country the right way. We should not punish them by using their very processing fees that they paid to accommodate illegal immigrants hiding from the rule of law. And that is why the President's unilateral executive action is so destructive.

So I proudly join my colleagues not only in voting to defund the President's unconstitutional executive action but also to call upon his administration and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to stop putting the interests of unlawful immigrants ahead of legal immigrants. Let's reward those who come to this country the right way, not those who have broken the law.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I again thank the Appropriations Committee and the chairman for this important work vindicating legal immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this important package, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) for his leadership, and I rise in strong support of his legislation, H.R. 37, the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act.

Indeed, this bill is about jobs and it is about economic growth. And it is about jobs on Main Street. Make no mistake about it: essentially the same legislative package passed the House last fall by a bipartisan vote of 320-102. If I may, I want to talk a little bit about title VIII of this legislation, which passed the House last April by voice vote, and it contains language from a bill I introduced in the last Congress, H.R. 4167, the Restoring Proven Financing for American Employers Act.

I worked closely with my colleague across the aisle, Congresswoman Maloney of New York, to craft sound, commonsense, bipartisan language to clarify the Volcker rule while maintaining its original legislative intent regarding the treatment of collateralized loan obligations.

Now let's just talk a little bit about the Volcker rule and what it does. As currently structured, this rule will substantially disrupt the market for CLOs, a vital source of capital for mid-sized and emerging growth American companies that cannot cost-effectively access the corporate bond market. There are two negative impacts of this rule.

First of all, it will have a serious negative impact on banks, many small- and medium-sized community banks, and it is estimated that banks will have to divest or restructure up to $70 billion of CLO notes under this rule if unchanged.

Second, it will compromise credit availability for American companies that are beneficiaries of this innovative source of credit.

Today, CLOs hold approximately $350 billion of senior secured commercial and industrial loans to some of the most dynamic, job- producing companies in America. One of these companies, Tempur Sealy International, the world's largest manufacturer of mattresses, foundations, pillows, and other bedding products, is headquartered in my district.

So it seems to me that the medicine being prescribed by the Volcker rule, forcing banks to sell billions of dollars of CLO paper in a fire- sale scenario, and the loss of credit availability for a wide range of Main Street businesses, growing companies, job-producing employers would be a far more damaging result to jobs and the economy than the perceived disease, banks ever suffering losses from holding AAA CLO paper, which is fundamentally different and distinguishable from the mortgage-backed securities that led to the run-up to the financial crisis.

It is important to note what this bill does and what this title does, and what it does not do. It doesn't do away with the Volcker rule. If you listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you would think that we are totally doing away with the Volcker rule. That is not what this does. What it does is it grandfathers legacy CLOs and prevents a fire sale of these CLOs.

So without the adoption of this grandfather provision, the Volcker rule would effectively operate to make illegal certain investments that were perfectly legal and safe when they were made. In other words, the Volcker rule as currently written applies retroactively to CLOs, attaching legal consequences to investment decisions

made by private parties who did not anticipate these consequences at the time the decision was made. Such retroactivity will profoundly and negatively disrupt the plans and settled expectations of CLO investors, and this will create turmoil in the commercial credit market and force banks to sell billions of existing CLO debt. As a result, the cost of financing will increase and access to credit will dry up, and this will reduce liquidity in America's capital markets.

Let me make a point here. Much has been said about Wall Street versus Main Street. This is about Main Street jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Independent Community Bankers Association, and the American Bankers Association all talk about how this will help. Our bill, our fix, will help community banks grow capital and support local economic development and job creation on Main Street.

The Bipartisan Policy Center says that forcing a select group of banks to sell these assets over a short time is not the optimal solution. Such an action would create an environment of institutions forced to sell, and buyers who can purchase CLOs at extraordinarily cheap prices, and this would create unnecessary losses at banks and produce windfall profits for those who can demand to buy them at below market rates.

The CLO provision represents a small and commonsense solution, not a rollback of Dodd-Frank by any means. It keeps the Volcker rule completely intact and simply provides phased-in compliance to banks of all sizes that made sound investment decisions, allowing for a finite universe of well-performing legacy CLOs to be sold or paid off.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

It will keep the Volcker rule completely intact, and simply provide phased-in compliance to banks of all sizes that made sound investment decisions, allowing the finite universe of well-performing legacy CLOs to be sold or paid off over an added 2 years rather than forcing these legacy CLOs into a fire sale.

The proprietary trading ban is retained entirely for all new CLO issuances.

So in conclusion, there has been a lot of talk about deregulation. As for the canard that deregulation was to blame for the financial crisis, that story line has been thoroughly debunked. The crisis was caused by the government's own housing policies, which fostered the creation of 25 million subprime and other low-quality mortgages, almost 50 percent of all the mortgages in the United States that defaulted at unprecedented rates.

In contrast, CLOs were not the root cause of the crisis. CLOs performed very well during the crisis. Regulators have many tools to ensure bank CLOs do not pose financial risks. CLO AAA or AA notes, in fact, have never defaulted. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense Main Street jobs bill.

``. . . or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 21st Century Educational Safehouse Program for providing high-quality, innovative programming for the at-risk youth in Lexington, Kentucky since 2010.

The 21st Century Educational Safehouse Program is an after-school program, coordinated by The Martin Luther King Academy, within the Fayette County Public School System, that provides a safe, drug-free environment for the most vulnerable youth in Fayette County. The program serves all middle and high school students in the district at three community based program sites. It also includes at-risk students from private, parochial, and homeschools located in Fayette County.

To date, the 21st Century Educational Safehouse has served nearly 3,000 students. Students are recommended for the program by their school's Youth Service Center, Social Worker, Counselor, and/or community partner. The program's curriculum focuses on a variety of issues including, tutoring, mentoring, educational enrichment, STEM, college/career preparation, and the arts. Students show remarkable improvement in the areas of behavior, character, and academic ability at the conclusion of the year-long program. Our community benefits greatly from the program's passion for pro-actively educating the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the 21st Century Educational Safehouse Program's dedication to ensuring a brighter future for the at-risk youth in Fayette County. This program's positive impact on our community and our Commonwealth is far-reaching and I commend them for their honorable mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor, commend, and congratulate Dr. Michael B. McCall, founding president of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System (KCTCS), on the event of his retirement. Dr. McCall has led KCTCS all of the 17 years since its creation in 1997, and during that time has overseen the coordination of Kentucky's community colleges, technical institutes, and the University of Kentucky into an education system that is now the largest provider of postsecondary education in the Commonwealth.

Dr. McCall, a strong advocate for a robust community college system even before coming to Kentucky, was recruited to KCTCS due to his knowledge, experience, and personal drive to see students succeed. As both an educator and an administrator, he has overseen the physical expansion of KCTCS and a dramatic upgrade in the system's academic quality. Dr. McCall oversaw 45 capital projects totaling approximately $500 million, giving 95 percent of all Kentuckians access to a KCTCS institution within a thirty minute drive. This enhanced presence has helped train the skilled workforce that Kentucky needs in order to compete in the modern economy.

Under Dr. McCall's leadership, enrollment at KCTCS increased by nearly 110 percent, contributing to the education of more than 500,000 Kentuckians. Dr. McCall also established or integrated several specialized programs to provide specialized skills for emergency services and some of Kentucky's signature industries, including emergency medical services, fire and rescue science technology, automotive manufacturing technical training, coal mining, and horseracing. The high-skilled, high-paying jobs in these fields will reinforce the readiness of Kentucky communities to guarantee public safety, grow and develop our local industries, and expand Kentucky's competitive advantage.

Dr. McCall's stewardship of KCTCS has provided the Commonwealth of Kentucky with an academic tradition that will benefit generations to come. I congratulate Dr. McCall on a terrific career improving the lives of my fellow Kentuckians as he enters retirement and wish him all the best for whatever the future may hold.

Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act, also known as the ABLE Act, I rise today to commend the House for yesterday passing this important piece of legislation that will help millions of Americans reach their full potential.

As the brother of a physically disabled sister who has lived with the challenges associated with being physically handicapped--over a dozen surgeries, hip and knee replacements, walking with crutches or walkers and sometimes reliance on a wheelchair--I know how difficult it can be for millions of Americans with disabilities and their families.

I also know from my sister, who graduated from college, went on to seminary, married her college sweetheart, adopted a beautiful little girl, and now serves others as a priest in the Episcopal church, that the challenges associated with being handicapped can be overcome.

The ABLE Act will help ease financial strains faced by millions of Americans with disabilities and their families and help them save for the future by creating tax-free savings accounts available to cover disability-related expenses. This provides families with a severely disabled child some peace of mind by allowing them to save for their child's long-term disability expenses.

We are better off as a Nation when disabled Americans are given tools like the ABLE Act to not only achieve self-sufficiency but to contribute and give back to our society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding individual, Mr. James T. Cecil of Lexington, Kentucky, for his distinguished military service during World War II. Mr. Cecil served our nation in uniform from August 26, 1942 to September 15, 1945.

At the age of 19 years old, Mr. Cecil was one of 70 young men from Central Kentucky who voluntarily enlisted as a private in the Marine Corps with what was known as the Lexington Platoon. Today, Mr. Cecil is the only surviving member of the original Lexington Platoon.

During the United States' campaign to achieve victory over the Axis Powers, Mr. Cecil entered the war by joining some of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific and continued to fight until the Empire of Japan signed the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on board the USS Missouri on September 2, 1954.

Mr. Cecil was a member of the first wave of U.S. forces that stormed the islands of Saipan and Tarakan. He was delayed entering the battles on the island of Okinawa for one day due to a Japanese kamikaze plane striking the naval ship he was aboard and causing him and his fellow service members to abandon ship. Astonishingly, after floating in the shark infested waters for about 45 minutes, Mr. Cecil was rescued by a nearby U.S. naval vessel.

On June 20, 1944, during fierce combat on the islands of Saipan, Mr. Cecil received shrapnel wounds throughout his body caused by an enemy's exploding artillery ordinance. Because of a severe concussion that left him unconscious, Mr. Cecil was believed by his comrades to be dead. Miraculously, Mr. Cecil recovered and courageously returned to the battlefield, fighting until the Marines took control of the islands.

When asked how he was able to make it through the dangers and challenges of war, Mr. Cecil said, ``I took it one day at a time, and I did what I was supposed to do.'' Today, he can still vividly recall his experience, and is often reminded of his involvements by gazing at a portrait of a Japanese officer whom he killed in combat. However, it was Mr. Cecil's discovery of a map in the officer's pocket which outlined many of the enemy's artillery positions that earned him a battlefield promotion from private to corporal. Mr. Cecil also earned a Purple Heart due to the injuries he sustained during battle.

Mr. Cecil's bravery and that of his fellow men and women in uniform secured our freedoms for future generations. He is truly an outstanding American, a protector of freedom, and an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. They want Congress and the President to work together in a bipartisan manner to deliver real solutions to the problems facing our country, one of which is our broken immigration system. So it is profoundly disappointing that the President has decided to ignore the will of the American people and act unilaterally to provide legal status and work permits to millions of people who have violated our immigration laws and are living in the United States illegally.

We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws, and so there is a right way to reform our immigration system and a wrong way. Bypassing Congress, ignoring the Constitution, and issuing a unilateral executive order is the wrong way. It is unfair to those who immigrated to this country legally for the President to fail to do his duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

The Constitution and the rule of law matter. Instead of issuing yet another overreaching executive order, the President should join good faith Congressional efforts to solve this problem. The House has already passed bipartisan legislation to secure our border, which is what my constituents tell me is the most important first step.

So I call on the President to follow suit. Stop dividing the American people, follow the Constitution, and work through the legislative branch to reform our immigration system the right way.