Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marine Captain Sean Endecott Elliott of south Orange County who died serving his country in a fatal KC-130 Cargo Plane Crash in Leflore County, Mississippi on July 10, 2017.

After graduating from the University of California Davis in 2009, Sean joined the United States Marine Corps where he attained the rank of Captain in 2013. He went on to become an aircraft commander for the KC-130 and fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming both a pilot and a Marine. A star tennis player known affectionately by his Marine Corps call sign ``Puffin'' Sean Elliott was a fine soldier

who proudly served his country. He accomplished so much for such a young man having been awarded the Navy and Marine Corps achievement medal, two sea service deployment ribbons, a Korean defense service medal, two global war on terrorism expeditionary medals, a global war on terrorism service medal, and a national defense service medal.

Sean Elliott touched the lives of all those he met. He leaves behind his loving wife Catherine and his family in San Juan Capistrano. I hope his memory will continue to bring happiness to the lives of his family and friends. I know that no words can describe the overwhelming grief of his family and friends at this time. The only consolation we here can offer is the thanks of the grateful nation he served and our pledge to support his and all other military families across our country. Sean remains a hero whose memory will continue to provide strength, courage, and inspiration to others.

I thank him for the sacrifice he made to protect our country and to help those who long for peace and freedom. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his loved ones and to his fellow Marines. This unimaginable tragedy reminds us all to cherish those who serve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass from Oceanside who died serving his country aboard the USS Fitzgerald. Shingo was a fine young sailor who proudly served his country. For such a young man he had accomplished so much. I know no words can describe the overwhelming grief of his family and friends at this time. The only consolation we here can offer is the thanks of the grateful nation he served and our pledge to support his and all other military families across our country. Shingo remains a hero whose memory will continue to provide strength, courage and inspiration to the others. I thank him for the sacrifice he made to protect our country and to help those who long for peace and freedom. I would also like to commend the crew of the USS Fitzgerald for all their efforts to save lives and their ship. I would like to extend my deepest condolences to his loved ones and his fellow sailors. This unimaginable tragedy reminds us all to cherish those who serve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Lester Irwin Tenney of Carlsbad, California, who recently passed away on February 24, 2017 at the age of 96. I am proud to recognize his memory as his Congressman and admire his life's work to strengthen ties with our allies in Japan.

Dr. Tenney served our nation during World War II on the 192nd Tank Battalion in the Philippines. Immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor, his battalion continuously fought against the Japanese assault until his commanders surrendered on April 9, 1942. He became a Prisoner of War and survived the infamous Bataan Death March, while thousands of his American and Filipino counterparts perished. He was then forced to work in a Japanese coal mine until the conclusion of the war. Upon returning to the U.S., Dr. Tenney studied business at San Diego State University, taught finance at Arizona State University, and started his own financial planning firm.

After publishing his memoirs documenting the atrocities he experienced as a POW, Dr. Tenney made it his mission to forgive his captors and establish friendships with Japanese citizens. As national commander of the Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor, he met the Japanese Ambassador to the United States,

Ichiro Fujisaki, and arranged for a public apology on behalf of Japan to the surviving POWs. He also worked with the Japanese government to establish the U.S.-Japan POW Friendship Program, which allows former POWs and their families to visit Japan annually. Finally, Dr. Tenney received a personal apology from Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in 2015 and just last month received a letter of apology from Mitsubishi Materials Corporation, one of the companies that profited from POW labor at the time. I have been fortunate enough to know Dr. Tenney. His courage and tenacity are an inspiration to all, and his moving story demonstrates how much impact one person can have on world affairs.

Dr. Tenney's legacy is admirable and his impressive achievements in U.S.-Japan relations will be remembered for years to come. He is survived by his wife, Betty, and his son, two stepsons, seven grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. I extend my condolences to his family in this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the tenth anniversary of Public.Resource.Org, a nonprofit organization promoting openness and transparency in all three branches of the federal government.

In the past decade, organizations like Public Resource have been instrumental in utilizing modern technology and the Internet as vehicles to make the proceedings and reports of the House of Representatives readily available to the general public. While I served as Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, our staff worked with Public Resource to upload a video archive of all its proceedings to the Internet and used official transcripts to add closed captioning to our hearings. In addition to the Oversight Committee, their team uploaded over 3,000 hearings from all committees to the Internet Archive, particularly documenting activity in the House from 2005 through 2011.

In the Judicial Branch, Public Resource published all the historical opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals and millions of pages of briefs from significant judicial opinions. They also worked with numerous executive agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Archivist of the United States, the National Technical Information Service, and the Internal Revenue Service to post thousands of government videos and upload over 9 million tax documents of nonprofit organizations for the public record.

As the organization celebrates this milestone, I would like to congratulate Public Resource for its service to Congress and the ongoing effort to provide American citizens with the tools they need to scrutinize the activities of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, floor debate is both for the people in the room and the people watching.

Many of the new Members have not yet voted on a substantive piece of legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I reach out with a little piece of history--a large piece of history, perhaps--for the freshmen of both parties.

First of all, this legislation is bipartisan. It is sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats.

Second of all, when Mr. Conyers, Mr. Nadler, and I were 16 years younger, in March of 2001, it was the last and only time that the underlying law allowed for a regulation to be repealed. It was prominently called ergonomics. It was repealed. I had the honor of voting for that as a freshman.

Since that time, in spite of the many regulations that some people don't like in one party or another, we have not seen fit to have a joint resolution repeal a regulation.

So let's talk about what it takes to do that. It takes both Houses of the Congress and the President of the United States to repeal a regulation created by a bureaucrat, or many bureaucrats--a regulation that may or may not be consistent with the law passed by this body, by the Senate, and by a President in this or a previous Congress.

Again, for the freshmen, we are the body that creates laws, and we do so through a complex and difficult procedure. We pass it out of the House or Senate. We then pass it out of the other body. If the President signs it, it then still is subject to court challenge.

Now, let's go through the regulatory process: Proposed by a bureaucrat, given a period of time in which dissenters may be 100 percent, and still it becomes law if this body does not act. So now that gives you a little feel for the underlying law. Used once on a bipartisan basis to take back an unpopular regulation that has never been resubmitted under both 8 years of a Republican and 8 years of a Democrat in the White House, and I repeat, the regulation that was previously recalled was so in error that it has never been redone in 16 years by two Presidents.

Now, let's talk about the bill we have before us today. We all know that the House is a body that, when it wants to, can move fairly quickly, and the Senate is a body that seemingly moves quickly only in recess. The fact is that the Senate takes a long time, and we have many regulations that may or may not be considered now or in the future.

All this legislation does is allow for us to dispose of one or more regulations in an expedited fashion in this body and have it seen in the same form in the Senate. Nothing more than that. It doesn't change the underlying law. It doesn't change the fact that the House, the Senate, and a President must concur on taking back what is essentially a law--that is what a regulation is--created by bureaucrats not elected by any of us. So let's keep it as simple as that.

For the freshmen of either party, when you go to make a vote on this, remember, we are not changing the underlying law. Only one regulation under the underlying law has ever been repealed, and it was bipartisan in both the House and the Senate when it was repealed. It has been 16 years, and the few that will likely be considered under this act and the underlying law will be just that, a relatively few regulations that are believed to be unnecessary and for which the House, the Senate, and the President concur.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute of my time to the gentleman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I won't be long. There is nothing mundane about what we are doing here. Every day in America, Congress passes a law maybe, but every working day in America, the bureaucracy passes regulations. The fact is, the American people know that the so-called regulatory state that has developed during the last half century means that, whether Congress is in session or not, new laws are being created, new rules that cause people in real America, working people and their companies, to have to figure out what new hurdle they have to jump over just to earn a living.

That is what we are talking about here, that at least when those are grossly exceeded under the underlying law and intention of Congress, Congress--the House, the Senate--in concert with the President, may, in fact, use the same tool, essentially the making of law, in this case to rescind to law.

I just want to again speak to the younger Members who may not know the history of this. All we are really talking about here in this act is, in fact, a law created to take away a regulation. What we are going to vote on will allow for, one, two, half a dozen regulations, if there were that many that we think are wrong, through our normal lawmaking process, in many ways, to be rescinded. The House has to vote a majority, the Senate has to vote a majority, and the President has to sign it. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between that and any other legislative business that we do here.

Now, I have worked with John Conyers both as a minority member and as my chairman. He is a good man. In this case, I believe that if he looked more broadly at the question of Congress' responsibility to review laws made outside of this body that he would support me. Notwithstanding not getting his support in this case, we do have both Republicans and Democrats on this bill. I expect that on the vote, in both the House and the Senate, it will be bipartisan, and any piece of regulatory law that would come before this body and the Senate, I am confident, would have bipartisan support in order to rescind a bad regulation.

So I think for those who are concerned about the regulations somehow running amok, no regulation will be rescinded under this law any different than any normal piece of legislation passed out of the House and the Senate and signed by the President.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague from Tennessee has been a good friend on many issues. I know he is passionate about regulations and laws that he would like to have passed, and so am I.

All of us in Congress have seen that it is extremely easy--the longer you are here, the more you will see it--it is extremely easy to stop something here. The same is true about those 61 or so regulations. Any combining of regulations, unless they are overwhelmingly disapproved, actually makes them harder to pass. We are not going to put 61 pieces of legislation, each of which has at least one or two or three or a dozen Republicans who vehemently oppose that regulation being rescinded. The fact is it is only the worst of the worst that are going to be stayed through this process and then reevaluated by the new administration.

I will mention, though, for my colleagues on the other side of this debate today, that we do appropriations every year. The American people, and for the freshmen who haven't voted on appropriations yet, think of appropriations as somehow different than the law. It really isn't. Appropriation is simply a law that provides funding.

Every appropriation bill during the entire nearly 8 years of President Obama has been some form of a continuing resolution or an omnibus. But as my colleague from Tennessee knows, every one of those has had dozens to hundreds of laws attached to them. We call them riders. We have terms for them. The fact is that a single appropriations bill, often done just before the end of funding of the government, always--always--has dozens, if not hundreds, of laws attached to it.

So the idea that we don't group together things which are relatively noncontroversial, that will cause someone to still vote for the bill in spite of it being in there, would be to be dishonest to the freshmen who need to know that we do for efficiency bring together things that we can pass en bloc, and we do it all the time--and even major legislation. I dare say, the Affordable Care Act and others are, in fact, multiple pieces of legislation put together in one package.

So lest our freshmen who are about to take their first vote on a piece of legislation--or one that could have a major impact-- misunderstand, bringing together multiple pieces into one bill is common, but it is always done in order to gain votes or to maintain votes. In fact, you do it at your folly if you lose votes.

I would say to my friend and colleague from Michigan that there is no likelihood that 61 pieces of regulation will be put together because there is no chance that there would be 61 pieces that even all Republicans would agree should be revoked. I would imagine the number would be less. I suspect that if my bill said 2 or 5 or 10, it would still be opposed for the same reason, which is that it creates inefficiency if there are multiple generally agreed bad pieces of legislation that need to be considered.

Lastly, and I am not closing, but I think this may be one of my closing remarks, for freshmen to understand, this isn't even about the House. We have the procedures in the House where we could put these together. This is about the Senate that can take 60 hours, 60 legislative hours or more, to do one piece of legislation. We know that the Senate has confirmations to do of judges and appointees for the Cabinet, and they have other legislative work, and we cannot afford to have them backed up now or in the future if there are multiple regulations that need to be rescinded.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman from Florida, I am sure, is well intended, but there is nothing more transparent than calling up to the floor of this House and debating the removal of regulations that have been found to be excessive or extreme or simply not consistent with the law. That is a transparent process. The term ``regular order,'' in fact, could not be more appropriate to that process. We passed a law nearly three Presidents ago, if you will, that simply called for this procedure.

All I am saying is we should not be mired down, if there are five or six or eight bad regulations, in not combining them together for purposes of getting them disposed of in a timely fashion. I might suggest to everyone that they remember that many of us did not support the regulation change yesterday as to the ethics oversight, because we do believe in transparency and will continue to believe in transparency.

Again, nothing is more transparent than bringing to the House floor the debate about something that is believed to have been wrong done by unelected bureaucrats. ``Bureaucrat'' is not a dirty word, but ``unelected'' fits this process.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I served on the Small Business Committee with Ms. Velazquez a long time ago. One thing that we all know is, with regard to that committee, the NFIB--the National Federation of Independent Business--and small business groups alike are something we look at, even NAM--the National Association of Manufacturers--and, of course, the Chamber. All of those organizations support this legislation. They have written letters in support, and I include in the Record those letters.

The following is a list of supporters of H.R. 21, the

Midnight Rules Relief Act:

American Action Forum, American Center for Law and Justice,

American Commitment, American Energy Alliance, American Fuel

and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Americans for Prosperity--

Key Vote, Americans for Tax Reform, Associated Builders and

Contractors, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Concerned

Women for America.

Family Business Coalition, FreedomWorks, Heating Air-

conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International

(HARDI), International Franchise Association, Let Freedom

Ring, National Association of Electrical Distributors (NAED),

National Association of Manufacturers, National Federation

for Independent Business, R Street Institute, SBE Council,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is we are hearing many people talk about important regulations and of their somehow being taken out. Let's understand that regulations can go both ways. These changes and the underlying law can also protect the other way. The fact is now we are in the future. You could have an administration that, in its final days, changes regulations to make them more lenient to large businesses, more lenient to polluters, more lenient to the employers to the detriment of their employees. Regulations can go both ways, and only the most extreme regulations--literally one since the enactment of the underlying legislation--has ever been repealed.

I don't want to belittle my own legislation, but let's understand that there won't be 61 en bloc being brought. There will be some, I hope, and there may be more than one. Yet for Congress to take back, piece by piece, its responsibility and then live up to that responsibility should be all of our goals.

Now, this legislation was limited to midnight rules. Let's understand that midnight rules are the rules done in the waning days of an administration--7-plus years into this administration--and many of these rules, in fact, were enacted after the last vote of the people. I think it is important to understand that, on election day, the American people delivered a resounding message to Washington: stop the regulatory, Big Government onslaught that is killing jobs.

One of my colleagues earlier spoke of the fact that we had had so many jobs--15 million jobs--created in the last 8 years. The percentage of the workforce that is working in America today is the smallest in my lifetime. It is smaller than it was 8 years ago, 16 years ago, or 21 years ago. We are not creating jobs at the rate of our population. We should not have some sort of an accolade for regulations having created a great economy if, in fact, that economy has grown less than 2 percent a year and has not kept up with any historic 8-year period. To me, that is an important part. Although the discussion I just had was about more than regulations, let's understand that the growth of regulations--of lawmaking--is certainly not the creator of jobs.

I think, when we look at the cost--and that is a lot of what we are dealing with in the manager's amendment in this bill--we are dealing with the recognition that we are looking at regulations in light of how much they cost. Now, that cost is based on independent scoring. It is not the administration's scoring and it is not my scoring. It is that of the Congressional Budget Office's, an independent agency that doesn't always give a score I want, but the score is not arrived through partisan activities.

I reach out again to the Members who may not yet know that what we are asking is simply to assert our normal ability in Congress and put together one or more ideas for the efficiency of the body, to send it from here to the Senate, and from the Senate to the President. What we are proposing in this legislation as a small change to the underlying legislation that has been with us for three Presidents is, in fact, consistent with this body's doing its job, in regular order, in the clear light of day.

I think the important message for this piece of bipartisan legislation is: we are taking back a limited amount of our capability, trying to streamline it, and giving the President an opportunity to accept or reject a piece of legislation voted on by a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate before it gets to the President. The President, if he feels we have included even one regulation inappropriately that he would like to retain, would veto our bill.

Lastly, I beg everyone to look at this for what it is, not for what others say it is, because it is simply Congress doing its job in an efficient fashion and consistent with 20-plus years of history and with there being only one piece--one time--when a regulation was withdrawn. No President since that time has tried to produce or has asked Congress to pass a law so as to put into effect a regulation that, on a bipartisan basis, the House, the Senate, and a President thought should go. I urge the support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I remember Chairman Ed Towns who used to say when someone ran on: The gentleman's time has long expired. I think we might have that situation here, but I am going to give the gentlewoman from Florida a moment more in just a moment.

The motion to recommit specifically sends it back to the committee. That is not necessary. The fact is that if she wanted these changes and wanted them enacted immediately there is a procedure to do so.

So I rise in opposition because this is certainly something that would delay, would send this back to committee, and cause it to come back again.

I will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for a question, if she wouldn't mind: Is there a regulation in those 61 that would be affected by this that would affect any of the provisions that you cited in your amendment?

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman answer the question. Is there 61, according to the ranking member, pieces of regulation that

could be in the window? I just wondered if you had one regulation by the Obama administration that concerned any of these issues that you had in the act.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask that the gentlewoman, if there are some, place them in the Record. I don't know of any in the 61 that were granted, let's say, after June.

What I will say is that the reason I will be voting and urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit is not the regulations that she alludes to but, in fact, the fact that this would kill the bill by sending it back and having it delayed further.

So, in order to pass it today, because she did not set it up to exclude these items and have them immediately considered, I cannot support her motion to recommit.

What I will say is that when we look at regulations to put into a package that may be a package of one or a package, if this passes, of more than one, I certainly will expect that those regulations will have to do with things which could have been done sooner, would have been done sooner, and were done in the waning days of the administration for no reason that was time sensitive.

The Affordable Care Act was passed in the first days of the administration. If there is something in the last days of the administration that has merit, I certainly would urge my colleagues not

to rescind that regulation. But if there is something that should have been done in year one, two, three, four, five, or six, I would ask why it wasn't done then.

Having said that, it is unfortunate that this motion to recommit was written in a way that would send it back to committee and, thus, cause a substantial delay.

I would caution my colleagues that, at least from this Member, if you have a motion to recommit and you want the amendment itself considered, make it one that is immediate and not back to committee. The difference, I think, is important. The Parliamentarian simply can advise on how to write one that would prevent it having to get, if you will, another delay of days or weeks.

I urge opposition to the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we mourn the loss of Edward J. Leong, who passed away on December 7th, after a lengthy battle with cancer.

Ed served for 36 years in the Office of the House Legislative Counsel, 16 of them as Senior Counsel. He specialized in titles 5 and 39 of the United States Code, the law governing the federal workforce and the United States Postal Service. His sharp mind, relentless pursuit of perfection, and skill ensured the bills considered by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Congress were written in a manner that allow for effective implementation.

Ed was a mentor and teacher to many current and former staff. His professionalism and dedication to his work are an example to this institution. Ed's soft-spoken manner, kind nature, and laugh made him a pleasure to work with.

As Chairman, I extend the sympathy and condolences of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to Ed's wife, Chee Lee, his children Stephen and Anna, and his colleagues--in particular those in the House Office of Legislative Counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5468) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1103 USPS Building 1103 in Camp Pendleton, California, as the

``Camp Pendleton Medal of Honor Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, of the several postal namings that we are voting on today, almost all of them are honoring members of the military and, disproportionately, members who have given their lives in service to their country, and it is fitting that we should do that. However, H.R. 5468 seeks something very different.

Currently called the ``Mainside'' Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Post Office, it is not named for anyone. Camp Pendleton has produced more Medal of Honor recipients--most of them posthumously--through World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the various gulf wars. Even as we speak today, marines are engaged now in Iraq again, having completed their missions in Afghanistan, and, undoubtedly, the valor they show will someday result in additional Medal of Honor recipients.

It is impossible to name the post office at Camp Pendleton after one marine, no matter how great, or after a few marines, even if they died together in battle--therefore, the unusual naming here at Camp Pendleton, a base that opened in 1942 and that, today, is the largest base of marines anywhere in the world. Over 42,000 marines and corpsmen call Camp Pendleton their home when they are not away from home.

I am humbled and honored to be able to represent Camp Pendleton for my entire nearly 14 years of service in the Congress. As a former Army officer, I have learned a great deal about marines. I have learned even more about their valor. Only in a place like Camp Pendleton would you find that the base band is named after a band leader who earned a Medal of Honor during the Korean conflict as he, in fact, laid covering fire for his fellow marines from a burning tank.

Therefore, today, we are considering--and I am confident we will name--this post office after all of those who earned America's highest honor. I envision that the post office will bear the names and, in a book, the recitation of how they each earned America's highest honor. It has been inspiring to represent them. Those Medal of Honor recipients, I must mention, will include Navy corpsmen, and they will include officers and enlisted men. They will include all of those battles from World War II to tomorrow and the days beyond.

As I ask for this post office to be named, one that I have had the honor of authoring, I might note, for all of those who wonder why we name post offices, I believe, if they come to Camp Pendleton, they will find out why this post office bears the name of a medal and not any one soldier, sailor, marine, or airman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I have but two things to say. First of all, I want to thank the California delegation for their unique, bipartisan, unanimous support for this bill.

Lastly, whether it is that bandleader who was a bandleader first, but would have said, ``I am an infantryman first,'' who served in World War II and died there in Korea, or it is the marines and corpsmen who have given their lives, their blood, their tears, their sweat, whether they were awarded the Medal of Honor, lesser medals, or were not fully recognized for their dedication, all of them, I now know, will have their daily activities, passing the post office or dropping a letter, they will have an opportunity to in fact realize that Congress is grateful for their contributions with the naming of this post office.

I urge support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5331) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 73839 Gorgonio Drive in Twentynine Palms, California, as the ``Colonel M.J. `Mac' Dube, USMC Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5331, introduced by my fellow Californian, Mr. Paul Cook, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 73839 Gorgonio Drive in Twentynine Palms, California, as the Colonel M.J. ``Mac'' Dube, U.S. Marine Corps Post Office Building.

First, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, Congressman Cook, the author of the bill, to speak more about this Vietnam war veteran.

I urge strong support for this bipartisan bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5386) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 11662 Gravois Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Lt. Daniel P. Riordan Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, authored by Congresswoman Ann Wagner of Missouri, recognizes the last full measure of support for Lieutenant Daniel P. Riordan, and I can add nothing more than the author will add, so I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I have no doubt that this will pass, as rightfully it should, but if I can take a moment, looking at that picture of the young lieutenant wearing his cavalry insignia, Armor is the only branch that I know of that has two insignias: one when you are stationed when you have heavy armor, one for the cav.

The fact is, in most wars, the enemy is ahead of you and you look for the enemy. In World War II and Korea, people talked about going to the front. In Iraq, there is no front. So every day Lieutenant Riordan knew he was at the front. Every day he knew in the light-armored vehicle he was riding in that, in fact, an IED could be cranked off either remotely or on his vehicle nearing it at any time.

Our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are not faced by an enemy who has a front. They are faced by an enemy that almost to a person hides behind improvised explosives. More of our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen have died because of these devices, not by an enemy at a front, but by a bomb on the road. Lieutenant Riordan was no different.

So when you look at his awards and you look at the way he lived and died, he wasn't fighting a war in which he went to the front to face an enemy; he faced that enemy, and at any moment his life could end, as it did end, by a sneak attack that had no face on it.

The courage of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan is greater in many ways than those who had a reprieve from the front from time to time and who knew when they were going toward their enemy, whether it was toward, if you will, heavy fire or sniper. In Iraq and Afghanistan in the past, the present, and now in the future, our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen face an enemy that they will likely never see, and they are in peril virtually every moment of the day and night. That special relationship is one that I hope the American people understand no generation has faced the way this generation faces.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1499) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 278 Main Street in Chadron, Nebraska, as the ``Sergeant Cory Mracek Memorial Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Army Sergeant Mracek was killed on January 27, 2004, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He died of wounds sustained during yet another roadside bomb attack in Iraq. He was only 26 years old, and he had been in Iraq for just 8 days.

Mr. Speaker, loved ones remember Sergeant Mracek as a man who loved Army life and was proud to serve his country. His bravery and his selflessness have inspired us all, and the naming of this post office in his memory is clearly appropriate.

It is my honor to ask the body to honor Sergeant Mracek's service and sacrifice by voting in favor of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1093) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the ``First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1093, introduced by Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 130 Caldwell Drive in Hazlehurst, Mississippi, as the First Lieutenant Alvin Chester Cockrell, Jr. Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, this is yet another first lieutenant. First Lieutenant Cockrell served his country in World War II. He enlisted in the Marine Corps back in 1937. He was assigned to Company B, 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, Fleet Marine Force. He landed at Guadalcanal. It was his 24th birthday. It was September 18, 1942. First Lieutenant Cockrell led his platoon in assaulting a strongly held enemy position against heavy machine gun fire. During that battle, charging into the face of machine gun fire, something we know all too well for United States Marines, he was killed in action. He died in that engagement.

Mr. Speaker, we often recognize marines because they have given a great deal in this war, along with the other forces. We often recognize Iraq and Afghanistan, and on occasion, we recognize Vietnam veterans as we did today. It is unusual for this body to reach back, as Senator Cochran has done, and find such a fitting individual from a war so long ago, the war that gave us America's Greatest Generation, and realize that we have not yet finished thanking those who gave us the freedom to pursue our lives, every person on the floor perhaps having been born after Lieutenant Cockrell died.

So it is altogether fitting that, as we remember the freedoms we enjoy, the opportunity we enjoy, the economy we enjoy, the lieutenant gave his all for that freedom.

With that, I would urge passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question at all, this is, again, another befitting naming.

I would like to thank the Senator for reaching back and finding such a worthy candidate, and I would like to remind all of us, coming off of Veterans Day, that, in fact, this generation of veterans is departing but will be remembered in our hearts for the rest of our lives.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 885) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the ``Thaddeus Stevens Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to defer my comments since the sole House Member from Vermont is available to make his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

When all speakers have said all that needs to be said and there is only one speaker left, he can't say anything original, so I will simply thank the Congressmen and the Senators for recognizing one of the first Republicans and one of the first Republican principles, one that is no longer owned by any party but in fact owned by all Americans. I move for passage.

I urge support of S. 885, introduced by Senator Sanders of Vermont which would designate the postal facility located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the ``Thaddeus Stevens Post Office''.

Thaddeus Stevens was born in Danville, Vermont on April 4, 1792. He attended nearby Peacham Academy and went on to study at the University of Vermont and Dartmouth College. After graduating from Dartmouth, Stevens moved to Pennsylvania to study law. He practiced law in Gettysburg, and spent four years as a member of the Pennsylvania State Legislature.

Thaddeus Stevens served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1849 to 1853 and from 1859 until his death in 1868. He is best remembered for being a fierce opponent of slavery and discrimination against African-Americans. He was instrumental in the passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and fought for African-American rights during Reconstruction.

I ask my colleagues to honor the courageous actions and momentous contributions of this great American by voting in favor of S. 885.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1512) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, as the ``Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of S. 1512, which was introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. The bill would designate the postal facility located at 1335 Jefferson Road in Rochester, New York, as the Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende Post Office.

Specialist Theodore Matthew Glende died while serving during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. He was killed on July 27, 2012, when his unit was in the field training and came under enemy attack. During the attack, Specialist Glende was killed by a mortar round that hit a trailer where he was helping wounded comrades take shelter. A member of his unit said that he saved the lives of five of his fellow soldiers in the attack. Specialist Glende was only 23 years old.

He was a native of Rochester, New York. Theodore graduated from the McQuaid Jesuit High School in 2007 and enrolled at Niagara University. He soon felt the calling to join the United States Army and enlisted. He is survived by his wife, Alexandra, whom he married just months before leaving for his first tour of duty.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to pay tribute to this great American. I ask all of my colleagues to support S. 1512 and the naming of this post office after this brave fallen soldier and hero of our time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge support for the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5142) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 113 West Jackson Street in Rich Square, North Carolina, as the ``Chief Joseph E. White, Jr. Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 5142, which was introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield). The bill would designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 113 West Jackson Street in Rich Square, North Carolina, as the Chief Joseph E. White, Jr. Post Office Building.

Rich Square Police Chief White served in law enforcement for over 30 years. Tragically, Chief White was shot and killed with his own .45- caliber service revolver on July 16, 2000, while investigating a possible gas drive-off or gas station runaway at a local gas station. He was shot after he stopped the vehicle which was wanted in connection with the incident. He is survived by his wife and several of his grown children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, Chief White made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. We owe a large debt of gratitude for his many years of service. The community and the entire North Carolina delegation support this naming. I support and recommend passage of H.R. 5142.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4194) to provide for the elimination or modification of Federal reporting requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Senate amendment to H.R. 4194, the Government Reports Elimination Act of 2014. H.R. 4194 passed the House by voice vote on April 28, 2014, and an amended version passed the Senate under unanimous consent on September 16. I would like to personally take a moment to thank Senators Carper and Coburn, as well as the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee staff, for diligently working on getting this bill passed through the Senate. I would also like to personally thank Senators Warner and Ayotte, who introduced a companion bill in the Senate, for working with the OGR and the House Armed Services Committee, and others, to get a bill that is so broadly accepted and does so much to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative agency reports.

The Government Reports Elimination Act is part of the committee's effort to reduce waste and duplication in the Federal Government. We have spent more than a year working with each House committee vetting each section to ensure that useful agency reports are maintained. The Senate amendment reduces to 48 the number of unnecessary agency reports to Congress and eliminates or streamlines an additional five.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good start. We started with a much larger report list. We believe that the progress under this bill sets the tone for an annual elimination of reports that have become outdated or unnecessary. It is very clear that each time the Congress passes a new piece of legislation--or even a new appropriation--there are questions that need to be answered and which the executive branch is staffed and funded to answer. However, most reports requested have no termination date. A single report is harmless and generally is accurate to the time of the passing, while one that goes on in perpetuity inevitably becomes outdated and, in fact, unnecessary.

In the future, we not only want to continue doing this for those reports that have an in-perpetuity annual or periodic report, we also want to make sure, as a committee, that new report requirements written into any piece of legislation have a reauthorization or elimination date. We believe that is the only way we can cease the continuation of excess reports.

Lastly, I would like to thank the GAO, the Congress' government accountability organization. In 2013, they identified mandates that appeared to be both burdensome and unnecessary, and they came to the Oversight Committee and to our counterpart in the Senate with them. If not for them, we would not have this bill here today.

Again, very often, the American people see Senators on one side and House Members on another taking credit for a vote they are about to make or have just made. Not often enough do we realize that it is not only our personal and committee staffs but also the staffs that work for Congress on a nonpartisan basis who are the ones, in fact, who generate most of the good things that ultimately come to this floor.

Lastly, I would like to thank this administration. This is one area in which they concurred with us and helped all along the way to try to include as many reports as they could in this piece of legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is worth the time we have put into discussing it. I thank Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for his support on this bill, and I think this is a special opportunity to thank Congressmen Woodall and Connolly for their support as original cosponsors on this bill.

It is amazing to me that you can have dozens and dozens of reports senselessly coming back from the administration that are not being read, not needed, are obsolete, and when you point it out, there is no objection whatsoever to eliminating them. I think that is exactly the situation we have here.

I look forward to working with the majority and minority leaders' offices to make sure that this is an annual event until we reach a point where there are zero pieces of reports coming to the Congress that are unread, unused, or unnecessary.

With that, I urge passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge support for the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.