Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 17, 2012, I missed two votes because my flight from Little Rock to the Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI) was cancelled along with a number of others because the airport was closed due to fog. I flew into Reagan National Airport later in the evening.

If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 627 (H.R. 4606) and ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 628 (S. 3193).

Mr. Speaker, I was ill with the flu and missed seven votes: on Tuesday, December 11, 2012, rollcall vote No. 620; on Wednesday, December 12, 2012, rollcall vote No. 621, rollcall vote No. 622, and rollcall vote No. 623; and, on Thursday, December 13, 2012, I missed rollcall vote No. 624, rollcall vote No. 625, and rollcall vote No. 626.

If I had been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall Vote No. 620 (Approval of the Journal). I also would have voted ``aye'' for each of the following: rollcall vote No. 621 (H. Res. 827 Previous Question), rollcall vote No. 622 (H. Res. 827), rollcall vote No. 623 (H.R. 6190), rollcall vote No. 624 (H.R. 4310, On Motion to Instruct Conferees), rollcall vote No. 625 (H.R. 4310, On Motion to Ito Permit Closed Conference Meetings), and rollcall No. 626 (H.R. 4053).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3869. This bill would designate the facility of the United States Post Office located at 600 East Capitol Avenue in Little Rock as the Sidney ``Sid'' Sanders McMath Post Office Building.

Sid McMath is one of Arkansas's finest sons, and he dedicated his life to serving Arkansas and our country. He was the 34th Governor of Arkansas and served as a U.S. Marine in World War II. He received the Silver Star for his valor during the Battle of Piva Forks.

Sid McMath was born in Columbia County, Arkansas, on June 14, 1912. In high school, he was a skilled boxer and won the State Golden Gloves title. He worked his way through college at the University of Arkansas by waiting tables, washing dishes, and fighting in exhibition boxing matches. After college, he served as a United States Marine during World War II where he distinguished himself in combat and earned the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit.

In 1948, Sid McMath was elected as the 34th Governor of Arkansas, serving from 1949 to 1953. As Governor, he was a staunch advocate for civil rights, fighting to uphold voting rights for all Americans and working to abolish the poll tax.

After serving as Governor, he continued his service to his Nation as a member of the Marine Corps Reserve, rising to the rank of major general. In 1967, he founded the Marine Corps Junior ROTC at Catholic High School for Boys in Little Rock. Many of the cadets known as ``Sid's Kids'' have followed his example by serving our country.

Governor McMath passed away in 2003 at the age of 91 in Little Rock. His autobiography, ``Promises Kept,'' was posthumously awarded the Arkansas Historical Association's highest accolade, the John G. Ragsdale Prize.

Today we honor Sid McMath's dedication and service to his State and Nation by installing a permanent marker of his contribution to Arkansas and America. His example is one all Americans and Arkansans can admire, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to honor his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Arkansas Nurses Association (ARNA) on their 100 years of continued leadership in and dedication to the nursing profession in Arkansas.

Nurses play a vital role in our health care system, providing essential patient care and improving the quality of their patients' lives. Nearly all--if not all--Americans have been or will be cared for by a nurse at some point in their lives. And, according to a recent survey by Gallup, nursing was recognized as the most trusted profession in the United States.

For their centennial celebration, ARNA has built their anniversary year around a celebration of ``The Year of the Nurse,'' which has included a celebration of their past, their present, and their future. For the past 100 years, it has been the mission of Arkansas nurses to ensure a healthy Arkansas population and a stronger nursing profession, and with ARNA's service, education, and advocacy, the nursing profession has continued to improve the quality of care delivered throughout Arkansas's 75 counties.

Even after the centennial celebration has concluded, ARNA will continue their efforts in promoting and ensuring developments in advanced education, clinical competency, nursing research, and patient and nurse advocacy.

As ARNA celebrates its centennial anniversary, I honor the efforts of Arkansas nurses who have created a professional organization that continues to advance the nursing profession in Arkansas and throughout the country, and I look forward to another 100 years of their success.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I rise today in support of the STEM Jobs Act, and I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

This is a critical piece of legislation that narrowly failed to pass when the House considered it in September, and I'm very pleased that we're considering it again here today.

Over the past few weeks when I was back in my district, the job creators in central Arkansas that I spoke with emphasized the need to once again bring this bill up, and I want to share a little bit about those conversations.

First of all, Welspun Tubular is in my district. It made the pipe for the Keystone XL pipeline. They need advanced STEM graduates to train workers.

Power Technology is a company that needs highly skilled workers to design, develop, and manufacture laser products. They say that they need this bill passed.

These companies have struggled to find the specific talent they need, and this bill would help them create jobs. This is a jobs bill. I want to emphasize that this bill will not take away from American jobs. These STEM visas will be made available only for foreign graduates of U.S. universities with advanced STEM degrees--Ph.D.s in the first instance, followed by foreign-born graduates of master's degree programs of which we have a shortage. Companies that offer jobs to foreign STEM graduates also must have certified that there are no American workers able, willing, or qualified and available for the job.

We are currently educating highly skilled Ph.D.s and master's and sending them back home to compete against us after they graduate. Where I'm from, that's like recruiting the best football players from Texas, teaching them the Arkansas offense, and then sending them back to Texas to compete against us. That doesn't make any sense, and people get that. Let's fix it. Let's pass this bill.

I rise today in support of the STEM Jobs Act, and I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you about some job creators in my district who would benefit from this bill. Welspun Tubular, which made the pipes for the Keystone pipeline, needs advanced STEM graduates to train workers. Power Technology needs highly skilled workers to design, develop, and manufacture laser products. These companies have struggled to find the specific talent they need, and this bill would help them create jobs.

We are currently educating highly skilled Ph.D.'s and masters and are sending them back home to compete against us after they graduate. That's like Arkansas recruiting the best college football players from Texas, training them on our offense and sending them back to Texas to compete against us. That doesn't make any sense. Let's fix it. Let's pass this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011, and urge its passage.

I would like to thank Congressman Joe Heck for his leadership on this issue as well as Judiciary Committee Chairman Smith, also Ranking Member Conyers, for their bipartisan cooperation passing this bill out of committee.

As a proud cosponsor of the Stolen Valor Act, I offered a substitute amendment during committee consideration in response to the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Alvarez. The court instructed that, however despicable, a false claim about receiving a military award is protected by the First Amendment. The substitute amendment, which was adopted unanimously by the Judiciary Committee on August 1, 2012, incorporates the Supreme Court's opinion and recommendations in Alvarez.

The bill we consider today ensures that the Medal of Honor, Purple Heart, and other military awards will be protected from fraud and that those who make false claims of military service or awards will face criminal penalties. I believe that protecting the integrity and valor of American servicemembers who have distinguished themselves in defense of this Nation is critically important. We must ensure that the Medal of Honor and other military awards are protected from fraud, and the Stolen Valor Act helps in that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Michael Tinsley who will be representing the United States in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London.

Michael hails from Little Rock, Arkansas. Little Rock is located in the Second Congressional District, which I represent. He attended Pulaski Robinson High School in Little Rock where he had a standout track career.

His dedication to and performance in track and field in high school earned him a scholarship at Jackson State University in Jackson, Mississippi, where he ran track and studied Criminal Justice.

At the 2006 NCAA Outdoor Track and Field Championships, Michael won the 400m hurdles for Jackson State becoming the first track athlete in the history of the university to win an NCAA Division I title.

Jackson State University declared Thursday, June 15, 2006, ``Michael Tinsley Day,'' and Michael was presented with a certificate from the governor, was handed keys to the city by the mayor, and was shown the banner bearing his name that would hang in the athletic center.

In 2006, Michael achieved his first ever top ten Track and Field News world ranking in the 400m hurdles. He achieved a top-ten world ranking again in 2011.

Michael's accomplishments don't end there, though. He also holds numerous other records and titles, and in the 2010 USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships, he placed third in the 400m hurdles. He is also a three-time NCAA All-American.

As evidence of his continued hard work and pursuit of excellence, Michael qualified for the 2012 U.S. Olympic Team in a remarkable and memorable way: he beat the reigning Olympic gold, silver, and bronze medalists in the 400m hurdles, taking first place to secure his Olympic berth.

Michael will represent Team USA in the 400m hurdles, and I am proud to have such an accomplished athlete and Arkansan representing our nation.

On behalf of Arkansans and Americans everywhere, I wish Michael Tinsley the best of luck in his Olympic endeavors and look forward to his great accomplishments in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History on the opening of their newest exhibit, ``Vietnam: America's Conflict.''

I am proud to represent the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History, which is located in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Museum opened to the public in May 2001 and is located in the historic Arsenal Building of the Little Rock Arsenal.

The Arsenal Building was constructed in 1840, and it is the only surviving remnant of the original Little Rock Arsenal and one of central Arkansas's oldest structures.

The future General of the Army, Douglas MacArthur, was born in the Arsenal Building while his father, Captain Arthur MacArthur, was stationed in Little Rock.

Through its displays and exhibits as well as its outreach into the community, the MacArthur Museum provides insight into Arkansas's rich military history and tradition--from its territorial period until present.

The Museum stands as a memorial to the proud history and dedication of Arkansas's men and women who served in and supported our nation's armed forces both at home and abroad.

The newest exhibit, ``Vietnam: America's Conflict,'' which will open on Friday, July 27, 2012, will examine the origins and conflicts of the Vietnam war and the contributions our state and its citizens made. It will also honor the 600 gallant Arkansans who lost their lives during the Vietnam war.

The MacArthur Museum stands as a memorial to the brave men and women who, throughout our history, have sacrificed--some making the ultimate sacrifice--out of their desire to serve our Nation. Each visitor, through their presence at the Museum, extends their gratitude and honors these Arkansans.

I congratulate the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History on its opening of this exciting exhibit, and I congratulate the men and women at the Museum who each day preserve Arkansas's proud military history and tradition so that it can be shared by this and future generations. It is an honor to represent you.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say that the idea that this bill will stop good, reasonable, commonsense, and much-needed regulations is nonsense. It simply requires Congress to have a role. And after all, Congress is the body that authorizes laws and regulations in the first place. That just makes sense. The complications that so many complain about, I call checks and balances.

I rise in support of H.R. 4078, the Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act. This bill would freeze significant regulations, those costing the economy $100 million or more, until nationwide unemployment falls to 6 percent or below.

Many of my friends on the other side say there's no connection between excessive and overly burdensome regulation and job creation. They must have been asking their favorite economist and not talking to actual job creators. Even President Obama disagrees.

In a January 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed, President Obama wrote:

Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing

unreasonable burdens on business--burdens that have stifled

innovation and have a chilling effect on growth and jobs.

He has at least given lip service to the problem.

Small businesses like Razor Chemical, a manufacturer of environmentally friendly cleaning supplies in North Little Rock, Arkansas, bear the brunt of regulatory compliance costs. According to the government's Small Business Administration, complying with current Federal regulations already costs at least $1.75 trillion every year, adding more than $10,000 in overhead per small business employee--which is 30 percent higher than the regulatory costs facing large firms.

Half of all private sector employees in the United States are employed by a small business job creator--exactly the type of folks who are getting hammered by the Obama administration's aggressive regulatory agenda. In its first 3 years, the Obama administration created 120 new major regulations, costing Americans more than $46 billion each year. That's more than four times the number and five times the cost of major regulations created by the Bush administration in its first 3 years.

As the lead sponsor of this bill, I made sure it carefully targets the most harmful regulations while making exceptions for Federal rules necessary for national security, trade agreements, enforcement of criminal and civil rights laws, and imminent threats to health or safety.

It also includes a provision allowing the President to seek congressional approval for other regulations that he thinks are absolutely critical. And, in fact, with that waiver, you can pretty much pass any regulation as long as Congress agrees.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama admitted, ``There's no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary or too costly.''

If there's no question about the problem, he should embrace the House's solution.

Well, I thank the gentleman.

First of all, I don't know anyone who's antiregulation. It's the excessive and overly burdensome regulations that are the problems.

I have a 2-year-old baby, John, and a 4-year-old, Mary Katherine. I want clean air and clean water for them.

I understand the need for reasonable, commonsense regulations, but that's not what we're talking about here, with all due respect.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I oppose this amendment because it is unnecessary and weakens the important reforms made by the bill. This administration has been issuing a torrent of the most expensive regulations, each of which cost the economy over $100 million. According to a study by The Heritage Foundation, President Obama already has adopted 106 regulations that add $46 billion in annual regulatory costs to the private sector, and nearly $11 billion in one- time implementation cost.

By contrast, in his first 3 years in office, President Bush adopted 28 major regulations costing the private sector $8 billion annually.

The bill is designed only to prevent unnecessary regulations. Titles I and II have reasonable exceptions for the President to allow regulations necessary because of an ``imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.'' And the congressional waiver provision of title I allows the President to authorize regulations during the moratorium period with the permission of Congress. Regulations that the President wants enacted simply have to go through Congress. Balance of power.

Title III prevents agencies from using litigation with special interest groups to force more regulations on the economy without sufficient transparency, public participation, and judicial scrutiny. For too long, agencies have used consent decrees and settlement agreements as cover to promulgate regulations with less time for review of cost and benefits, alternatives, and public comment. This is yet another way that agencies impose unnecessary and ill-considered regulations on the public. It should be stopped.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just like to make it clear, again, that any regulations that are needed, that the gentleman from Florida feels are needed, that the President feels are needed, those can be enacted under this law. It simply requires Congress to play a role. I have no doubt that the President opposes this bill. I understand that he doesn't want to share his regulatory power with this body. I'm sure a lot of Presidents might feel that way. But it is all about separation of powers and sharing power and allowing this body to have a say.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack).

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

I oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman, because it is unnecessary. Titles I and II of the bill, the regulatory freeze and midnight rules titles, apply only to those regulations that are most costly to the economy, costing $100 million or more. Unfortunately, these are the kinds of rules that the Obama administration is issuing at a much faster rate than the previous administration.

Under President Bush, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs' biannual regulatory agenda on average reported 77 economically significant regulations in the proposed and final stages of the rulemaking process. By comparison, President Obama's biannual average is 124.

I would also note that President Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not yet issued the spring 2012 regulatory agenda, although judging by the weather alone, I would say that spring is well behind us.

This can only add to the regulatory uncertainty that discourages job creation. It is no wonder, then, that a Gallup Poll found that small businessowners cite complying with government regulations as their most important problem. The Federal Government needs to slow down on issuing the most costly regulations until the economy has a chance to recover or until this body approves regulations forwarded to it. Even if a regulation related to privacy met the $100 million threshold for titles I and II, I am confident that the bill's reasonable waiver procedures would allow any necessary privacy regulation to move forward. There is no reason that regulations related to privacy should be exempt from the reforms to consent decree abuse contained in title III. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I've been saying repeatedly when the other amendments were debated I will repeat: the bill that we have before us has ample exceptions for regulatory action. And, in fact, it has a catch-all waiver that will allow the President of the United States to seek approval of regulations, but he'll have to work with Congress on them. After all, we're the ones that authorize the laws, the bills; and we should be authorizing and approving regulations.

There's no limit to which ones. The regulations addressed by this amendment would certainly be fertile ground for the President to forward to Congress for approval. So there are ample exceptions and waivers.

And I would also point out that, as I indicated earlier, I'm not anti-regulation. It's the excessive and overly burdensome regulations that we are concerned with. We need reasonable regulation, commonsense regulation. But the problem is the system, the regulatory system, has gotten out of control.

So there are ample ways to deal with the issue addressed here under the bill, and I believe this amendment is unnecessary, and I oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is, like the others, unnecessary. And as it is drafted, it seems to suggest that the Federal Government can somehow regulate the weather.

Titles I and II of this bill were carefully drafted to block only those unnecessary, most costly regulations, those that cost the economy $100 million or more. The bill contains reasonable exceptions for the President to issue a regulation, for example, that is ``necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency'' or one that is ``necessary for the national security of the United States.''

The bill also contains a congressional waiver exception whereby the President can make any other necessary regulation with the permission of Congress.

King Canute famously demonstrated many centuries ago that the weather does not respect executive fiat. Although the Federal Government cannot control the weather by regulation, it can issue regulations to help Americans cope with the effects of extreme weather.

I believe the exceptions already in this bill would cover regulations related to the extreme weather events suggested by the gentleman from Massachusetts' amendment. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I first would like to say I supported the America Invents Act, supported it in committee, and I've got great news for you and great news for me, and that is I don't see any evidence that the rules to which you referred would total $100 million in impact and meet that threshold. I just don't believe that's the case. So this amendment is unnecessary. Even if they do meet that threshold, there are several ways that they could be brought to Congress for approval.

The amendment, like so many others offered here tonight, seeks to carve out one set of regulations while leaving all the other regulations under the bill. Surely folks have their favorite regulations that they want to save and defend, and like a number of other carve-out amendments, this one is just not necessary. Titles I and II of the bill, for example, already exempt regulations, as I indicated, that will not impose $100 million in cost on the economy.

Surely the regulations this amendment seeks to protect, those that will streamline patent application processes, will save the economy money, not impose more cost. There is, thus, no need to worry that they will be affected by these titles of the bill.

Meanwhile, title III of the bill imposes balanced improvements in transparency, public participation, and judicial review for regulatory consent decrees and settlements. It will not prevent the Patent and Trademark Office from settling regulatory suits by consent decree or settlement. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

While I appreciate the passion of the gentleman from North Carolina, it doesn't change the fact that it's very unlikely that the impact on the economy would be $100 million or more. That has nothing to do with the sales of the company. It has to do with the impact of the regulation on the economy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, this amendment would exempt regulations to implement ObamaCare, the President's health care law, from the regulatory freeze.

Fear and uncertainty among job creators of the coming regulatory tidal wave to implement ObamaCare is certainly holding back our economic recovery. The Congressional Budget Office projects that ObamaCare will cost over $1.1 trillion. For American small businesses that are already struggling to stay afloat, this is a staggering burden.

If you want to know what small businesses think about the bill that is before us, I will tell you that, in Arkansas, they support it, but they certainly do not support ObamaCare. I would also point out, Madam Chair, that the NFIB, the premier small business organization in America, supports the bill.

It is estimated that ObamaCare will require nearly 160 new boards, bureaus,

bureaucracies, and commissions. Overall, the Federal Government will issue, roughly, 10,000 pages of new regulations to implement the so- called ``health care reform.'' Yet this amendment would exempt these regulations from title I of the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act.

At a time when we should be working to repeal ObamaCare and to replace it with patient-centered health care reform, this amendment simply makes no sense. I would also point out, Madam Chair, that if there are regulations that the Obama administration wants to see proceed through the process, they can certainly send them to Congress and see if we will approve them. We can take a look at them, see if they make sense, see if they do what they intend, and see if it's right for the country.

For these reasons, I oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

As I have said with regard to the other amendments that we have discussed here tonight, Madam Chair, there are several exemptions in the bill, and there is also the waiver, as the gentleman from Virginia has discussed.

Now, before I get to the waiver, I would like to point out that, unless I'm missing something, I think that the safety of peanut butter that I and my 2-year-old and my 4-year-old eat--I like crunchy; they like creamy--I think it's already regulated. And if it's not, we certainly make provision for that to happen. I, like the gentleman from Virginia, want to make sure people are protected. I happen to also be a veteran, and I certainly want to see veterans taken care of.

I want to make it clear that our bill does not go back and repeal regulations that are finalized and in place. What it does is it says, let's take a deep breath; let's have a time-out; and let's allow the many small businesses and other job creators in this country an opportunity to catch up.

We've heard a lot about small businesses tonight. And I will point out once again that the premier small business organization in this country is the NFIB, and they support the bill.

Now, with regard to the gentleman from Virginia's amendment, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act will put a moratorium on unnecessary regulations that will cost the economy $100

million or more until the economy recovers. But even the administration admits that regulations can kill jobs and hinder economic growth, although this doesn't seem to have prevented them from issuing more and more of these most costly regulations.

Title I of the bill is carefully drafted to allow the President to issue certain necessary regulations during the moratorium period, such as regulations that implement trade agreements, for national security, for criminal and civil rights laws, the enforcement of those laws, and for an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency. For any necessary regulation not covered by one of these exceptions, we have the congressional waiver that the gentleman from Virginia referred to. Under it, the President can ask permission for Congress to make the regulation, to approve it. This is entirely appropriate, since the Constitution vests in Congress ``all legislative powers.''

But this amendment could totally undermine the moratorium by allowing the President to swamp Congress with waiver requests. If Congress doesn't act on each request within 7 days--and the amendment doesn't specify whether this is calendar, session, or legislative days--then the waiver is deemed granted. With its track record of dramatically increasing the regulatory burden on the economy, this administration has shown that it cannot be trusted not to abuse the process this amendment would create. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just point out, Madam Chair, that the part of the bill that the gentleman from Maryland calls ``a farce,'' the Founding Fathers might refer to it as ``balance of powers.'' And that's what we're trying to do here, allow Congress to share in the process since we are the source of all legislative power. That is just another reason that I oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. If an agency improperly makes a regulation during the moratorium period, as written, the Freeze Act would allow a small business that successfully challenges the action to collect attorney's fees. The gentleman from Florida's amendment would strengthen this provision by ensuring that any attorney's fees awarded under title I come out of the agency's budget and not from the general Federal Treasury through, for example, the judgment fund. If an office or agency defies the law and tries to make a regulation that should be subject to the Freeze Act, then that particular office or agency should bear the consequences of forcing a small business to go to court to vindicate its rights.

For these reasons, I support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 3870, to designate the U.S. Post Office located at 6083 Highway 36 West in Rose Bud, Arkansas, as the Nicky ``Nick'' Daniel Bacon Post Office.

Nick Bacon is one of Arkansas' finest sons, and he dedicated his life to serving our country. Mr. Bacon was born in Caraway, Arkansas, on November 25, 1945. In 1963, at the age of 17, he forged his mother's signature so he could enlist in the Army. He went on to serve two tours in Vietnam.

On August 26, 1968, while serving as a squad leader with the First Platoon, Company B, in an operation west of Tam Ky, Mr. Bacon and his unit came under fire. He destroyed an enemy position with hand grenades, but his platoon leader was wounded in open ground. Without hesitating, he assumed command and led the platoon in destroying still more enemy emplacements.

When the third platoon leader was wounded, Mr. Bacon took command of that platoon as well, leading both platoons against the remaining enemy positions. During evacuation of the wounded, he climbed up on the deck of a nearby tank, and from that vantage point, he directed fire into enemy positions, all while exposed to enemy fire himself.

He personally is credited with destroying an anti-tank weapon and moving the platoons forward so they could eliminate the enemy positions and rescue soldiers trapped at the front. For his actions on that day, Mr. Bacon received the Medal of Honor, which was presented to him by President Richard Nixon during a ceremony at the White House in 1969.

Mr. Bacon also earned multiple awards for his accomplishments, including the Distinguished Service Cross, the Legion of Merit, two Bronze Stars, and a Purple Heart.

After retiring from active duty, he continued his service to America. He served as the director of the Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs from 1993 until his retirement in 2005. During that time, Mr. Bacon was essential to the development of the Arkansas State Veterans Cemetery, and the Arkansas State Veterans Cemetery Beautification Foundation. He also helped establish the Arkansas Veterans' Coalition.

Additionally, in 2004, Mr. Bacon was appointed by then-Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, to the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, an independent, 13-member panel responsible for studying the military system of compensating veterans for their injuries. The commission was charged with ensuring that the compensation system was equitable and fair.

Mr. Bacon passed away on July 17, 2010, after a long battle with cancer. He was the last living Medal of Honor recipient from the State of Arkansas, and he is survived by his wife, Tamera, and children and grandchildren.

Mr. Bacon spent his final years as a resident of Rose Bud, Arkansas, and we can honor his heroism, bravery, and service by installing a permanent marker of his contribution to Arkansas and America. His example is one all Americans and Arkansans can admire, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to honor his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1959) to require a report on the designation of the Haqqani Network as a foreign terrorist organization and for other purposes, as amended.

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 S. 1959, as amended, currently under consideration.

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

I thank my Senate colleague, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, for their work on this issue.

This bill directs the Secretary of State to submit a report to Congress detailing whether the Haqqani Network meets the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization according to current Federal law. If the Secretary determines that the Haqqani Network does not meet the criteria, the Secretary shall provide a detailed justification as to which criteria have not been met. The bill also provides a sense of Congress that the Secretary of State should designate the network as a foreign terrorist organization.

The Haqqani Network is an insurgent group fighting against U.S.-led NATO forces and the Government of Afghanistan. Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son lead the network, which is now based in Pakistan but operates on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

For about 2 years, the Pakistani Government has sought to facilitate a compromise between the Haqqani Network and the Government of Afghanistan. However, the network has close links with al Qaeda and is believed to provide al Qaeda operatives with safe haven in Haqqani- controlled areas. The Pakistani Government is believed to be the only entity with the influence to bring the Haqqani Network to the negotiating table.

The Obama administration has been considering formally designating the Haqqani Network as a foreign terrorist organization under U.S. law, but has yet to act. Seven Haqqani leaders have been under U.S. sanctions since 2008; and in 2011, Secretary Clinton designated operational commander Badruddin Haqqani under Executive Order 13224, thereby blocking movement of his assets, but not those of the umbrella Haqqani Network.

Since 2008, several attacks have been linked or attributed to the Haqqani Network. In addition to kidnappings of journalists and bombings of hotels and embassies, the Haqqani Network is blamed for the attacks on the U.S. Embassy and nearby NATO bases in Kabul in September 2011. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker blamed the Haqqani Network for the 19-hour Kabul attack which killed four police officers, three coalition soldiers, and four civilians. Two dozen more soldiers and civilians were injured.

The Obama administration insists on negotiating with the Haqqani Network despite unsuccessful attempts in the past. Secretary Clinton has indicated that these negotiations may be necessary again in order to establish sustainable peace in Afghanistan. However, the Haqqani Network has been permitted to evade designation as a foreign terrorist organization. Congress' frustration with the Obama administration's overdue review of the Haqqani Network is clearly evidenced by this legislation.

According to U.S. military commanders, the Haqqani Network is highly resilient and is one of the biggest threats to the U.S.-led NATO forces and the Afghan Government in the current war in Afghanistan. This straightforward legislation simply directs the Secretary of State to analyze whether the Haqqani Network meets the standards for designation as a foreign terrorist organization under Federal law and report those findings back to Congress. It also expresses the sense of Congress that the Haqqani Network should be designated as a foreign terrorist network. The bill does not, however, require that the President designate the Haqqani Network as a foreign terrorist organization. This is a carefully limited bill, and, as I noted earlier, similar legislation was passed by the Senate without opposition.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, July 16, 2012.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning S. 1959, the

``Haqqani Network Terrorist Designation Act of 2012,'' which

is scheduled to be considered by the House this week.

As you know, pursuant to House Rule X, the Committee on

Foreign Affairs maintains jurisdiction over matters

concerning foreign relations, the U.S. diplomatic service,

and the protection of Americans abroad. The Office of the

Parliamentarian has indicated that S. 1959, which concerns

the Secretary of State's designation of the Pakistan-based

Haqqani Network as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under

U.S. law, implicates Foreign Affairs jurisdiction.

In order to expedite Floor consideration of this bill, the

Foreign Affairs Committee will forego consideration of this

measure. This is being done with the understanding that it

does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to

the appointment of conferees, or its jurisdictional

prerogatives on this or similar legislation in the future.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to S. 1959, and ask that a

copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in

the Congressional Record during Floor consideration of the

bill.

Sincerely,

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and congratulate Mr. Jeffrey Meek of Hot Springs Village, Arkansas, for his dedication to preserving the stories of Arkansas's World War II veterans.

Jeff's interest in the stories and lives of World War II veterans began when his own son enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. At that time, Jeff started researching the experiences of his father and his wife's father during World War II. Then, after joining the Akansa Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Jeff's wife, Jeanne, recommended that Jeff get involved in the Library of Congress' Veterans History Project (VHP), which is preserving oral histories of our veterans. Each oral history is recorded on a DVD and, along with VHP documentation, is sent to the Library of Congress to be preserved and made accessible to researchers, educators, and the general public.

Jeff conducted his first oral history for the VHP in 2007 and started reporting some of the stories in his local newspaper, the Hot Springs Village Voice. He later published 75 accounts in his book They Answered the Call: World War II Veterans Share Their Stories. Jeff has spent over one thousand hours collecting the moving stories of hundreds of our World War II veterans, and he has brought them to life during three sold out programs honoring them.

Jeff's dedication to World War II veterans extends beyond recording their oral histories. He accompanied a group of veterans as they participated in the ``Honor Flight'' program. This program flies World War II veterans to Washington, D.C., free of charge, so they may visit the World War II memorial and some of the other memorials in Washington, D.C.

For his devotion to our veterans, Jeff has been recognized by a number of organizations, including the Akansa Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution and each of Hot Springs Village's five military organizations. In addition, he received a letter of commendation from the Veterans History Project itself for his attention to detail in preserving the treasured chronicles of our nation's heroes.

Because of volunteers like Jeff, our veterans will be forever honored through the preservation of their memories. I commend Jeff for his outstanding service to Arkansas's veterans, and I would encourage other Americans to become involved with the Library of Congress' Veterans History Project by recording the stories of veterans in their own communities. I thank Jeff for giving these veterans the opportunity to tell their stories and for allowing these stories to become priceless pieces of American history.

Thank you. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about repeal and replace, and I have a lot of constituents asking about the replace part of that. And what I tell them is we have a lot of ideas that have been introduced here in the House. In fact, by last count, there are over 200. I think it's something like 219 bills introduced in the House that relate to health care reform. So we are not short of ideas in terms of implementing real health care reform.

But before we get to that, we first must repeal this monstrosity, this almost 3,000-page monstrosity of taxes, new boards, and new agencies that makes it more difficult for businesses to hire new people. So that's why we're here focusing on repeal today.

We have, Mr. Speaker, lots of ideas. For example, many of us here support medical liability reform. Gallup polls and other experts have testified that much of the cost of what we pay in health care is attributable to the practice of defensive medicine. By some counts, one-quarter of all health care costs are attributable to the practice of defensive medicine.

We have a great medical liability reform bill. In fact, if I remember correctly, a couple years ago in the State of the Union, the President said he was in favor of medical liability reform. I haven't heard much from him on that. I wish he would talk more about it. It certainly wasn't part of his health care law. But that's a great idea that will reduce the practice of defensive medicine and reduce the cost of health care and, in turn, make health insurance more affordable, which, in turn, addresses the access question.

We also have great legislation introduced by my friend, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. She has got a great bill. What it does is it allows for competition between insurance companies across State lines. So if you live in Arkansas and you see a health care plan that you want to buy over in Tennessee, our neighboring State, well, you can buy that plan. And then if you move to Arizona--I don't know why you would leave Arkansas, but if you did, you could take that with you across State lines.

Competition, choice, and patient-centered options, that's the kind of health care reform we need. And that's the kind of health care reform that I favor, that many folks here in the House favor, and that is reflected in the over 200 bills that have been introduced here. And we want to get to that. But before we can get to that, before we can focus on the replace, we have to repeal. And that's why we're here again asking the Senate to do its part.

I'll tell you, I've had some folks on Twitter and Facebook and other places say, You're just wasting your time. Why are you just wasting your time? I think I was asked that on television earlier today. And my response was, when I made a pledge in my campaign to repeal ObamaCare, the President's health care law, whatever you want to call it, my pledge was not I'm going to fight to repeal it if the Senate agrees to pass it. That wasn't my pledge. My pledge was I'm going to fight to repeal it. I'm going to control what I can control. I can't control the Senate.

In fact, I told somebody on Twitter about 15 minutes ago, before I came down here to the floor, I said, well, if we in the House only took action on issues that we know the Senate will vote on, we would all be sleeping. Mr. Speaker, you'd be sleeping in the chair and we'd be sleeping, because the Senate doesn't take action on much of anything. Sometimes I feel like I've got to walk down there and wake them up.

So my job in fulfilling my promises, my pledges, and my commitment to my constituents is not dependent upon whether the Senate is going to do the right thing or not. I hope they do. I'm praying for them, and I wish them well. But we're going to do our job here regardless of what they do down there.

I'll say one more thing. Anybody who has been paying attention over the last 2 years knew before I ever got elected what my intention was. And I think a lot of us talked about this before we ever got here, and what we are doing is following through on our promise.

I yield back, and I appreciate the time.