J. Hill

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Section 10: ``No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.''

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Little Rock Central High School's flag line and marching band for participating in the events marking the 75th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. Known as the Stereophonic Storm of the Mid-South, Central's flag line and marching band joined several high school bands across the Nation at the annual Waikiki holiday parade to commemorate this historic moment. Led by band director Brice Evans, the school's trip lasted an entire week, giving our students the chance to having an unforgettable experience by meeting Pearl Harbor survivors and enjoying Thanksgiving in Hawaii. With their seemingly limitless enthusiasm and spirit, the Central High School band continues to represent themselves with determination and dedication that make all Arkansans proud. As a long time friend and supporter of all things for Central High, congratulations. I look forward to following the band's continued success.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lauren Jackson, who became one of 32 American students to be named as a 2017 Rhodes Scholar to the University of Oxford in England. A 2013 graduate of Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, Lauren became the first Arkansan to be named a Rhodes Scholar since 2003. She received a full merit scholarship to the University of Virginia (UVA) and a $20,000 Jefferson Public Citizens research grant to study post-traumatic stress syndrome in post-genocide Rwanda. Currently a senior at the University of Virginia, Lauren is completing a bachelor's degree in political and social thought with the plan to pursue master's degrees in both global governance and diplomacy and refugee and forced migration studies at Oxford. While at the University of Virginia, Lauren has been on track to pursue her goal of a career in journalism, writing as a columnist for the Cavalier Daily while serving as creative director for V Magazine and president of the Latter-Day Saint Student Association. On behalf of all Arkansans, congratulations, and we look forward to following your continued success.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the people's House this evening. Last night, I talked about my initial reflections on having been a freshman Congressman spending my first term in the United States House of Representatives. Last evening, I talked at length about the growth of the administrative state, the expansion of executive power, to the detriment of the first branch, the legislative branch. I traced those changes from my previous service on Capitol Hill as a young man in the Senate staff of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, and then, most recently, working for President Bush 41 during his 4 years in the Presidency. Tonight I want to turn and continue that discussion with our American people, Mr. Speaker, and talk about how the cabinet agencies, since I worked for President Bush, worked in cabinet affairs, coordinated economic policy during the last 2 years of his Presidency from the White House staff. I want to talk tonight about those cabinet agencies and how, in my view, they have become essentially unmanageable. You can see the critical need for spending and personnel reform in many of our departments. In fact, one may assume that change is desired by both the legislative and executive branches, yet reform flounders, whether it was at the Pentagon under Secretary Rumsfeld during Bush 43 or the Veterans Affairs Department today under the current administration. I have watched the VA for the past 2 years. Secretary McDonald's plans changed, laws are changed, yet malfeasance, incompetence, and worse persist. On just this Monday, Mr. Speaker, The Washington Post published a shocking report that Pentagon officials buried evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste during 2015. For that horrific activity, they were the recipient of this month's Golden Fleece Award by my office. To make it worse, they even made the effort, according to The Washington Post, of hiding this effort, knowing that it would be impetus for the Congress to come together and cut their budget. Clearly, that is a problem with an unmanageable cabinet agency. I have seen this firsthand right in Little Rock, my hometown, where the center of the Air Force's C-130 program is, for America's airlift, where the Department of the Air Force officials planned for years to transfer aircraft from Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi to Little Rock Air Force Base, basing it as a critical, cost-saving initiative, along with other force structure changes of some $922 million across future years of their 5-year plan. Yet, Congress' meddling prevented this commonsense Air Force plan cost- saving initiative. So these bureaucratic efforts in the cabinet agencies that make them, in my view, unmanageable come both from the executive and from the legislative. Looking at the Veterans Affairs Department, some 360,000 employees, up 140,000 in the past decade alone. About two-thirds of the members are civilian employees, are part of the American Federation of Government Employees and Service Employees International Union. These VA employees are subject to, of course, the protections by the Merit Systems Protection Board. While there are many hardworking and dedicated VA employees, both in the healthcare area, across our VA hospitals, and in benefits, and many union members fight for high standards and fight for high quality across our veterans system, the facts are stubborn things, and they remain that the VA has had serious quality, ethics, and management issues that are hurting veterans and hurting the reputation of the Federal Government. Just in this Congress alone, under the leadership of Congressman Jeff Miller, the chairman of our Veterans Affairs Committee during this Congress, we have seen reforms to rein in construction spending by the VA, clawback bonuses, fire bad actors, stop paying official time to do union work. We have seen, though, people not fired, even though people have died in VA health care. We have seen a $300 million hospital complex, Mr. Speaker, be $1 billion over budget; not possible, in my view, in the private sector. So there is no doubt that our cabinet agencies need reform. We talked about regulatory reform, executive overreach reform, but we must have work rule reform in our agencies. The other thing I want to touch on tonight before I talk about solutions is just spending overall to fund the obligations of our Federal Government. Every month, I receive numerous letters about the $1.1 trillion in annual spending that Congress typically approves each year. When done properly, this annual spending is approved by way of 12 appropriations bills in this body, the people's House, and six appropriations bills in the Senate. They are conferenced together, and they are presented to the President for his veto or approval. The problem is that this very typical, very constitutional program that has been applied for 240 years about how to authorize and appropriate funds to operate our government just no longer typically happens, yet this is Congress' most fundamental obligation under Article I. The appropriations clause is but 16 words long. ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.'' This is our job, yet the last time that all the appropriations bills were passed individually and enacted into law before October 1 of a new fiscal year was 1994. My, that is a terrible track record. So this is not a President Obama issue or a President Bush issue. This is an issue of the Congress itself. Now you know why, after 20 years, I have seen so many things change, and not for the better, coming back to Washington to represent the people of central Arkansas. What happens without such a process of appropriations bills is what we will be voting on this week: a continuing resolution which simply freezes spending at current levels and extends forward to a date certain, or, as an alternative to that kind of continuing resolution, an omnibus spending bill where everything is rolled into one. These massive bills reflect the work, hopefully, of our House and Senate committees. They frequently contain items, Mr. Speaker, that are parachuted into the bill at the end of the negotiations between the House and the Senate, and those produce fireworks on both sides of the political spectrum. The irony about that debate of that $1.1 trillion in typical annual spending, approved by this body, is that it composes about $600 billion--50 percent--that goes to our national defense that funds the essential expenditures for our men and women in uniform. About $80 billion goes to our veterans and military construction projects around the United States and the world, and the balance is for everything else that we consider government: highway finance, local education initiatives that go to our States, our national parks, and help for our Corps of Engineers on our ports and along our rivers. What shocks the Arkansans that I respond to about their letters is that, while I appreciate their correspondence, their emails about that $1.1 trillion in spending, the so-called domestic discretionary spending, I remain frustrated that Congress' lack of action on the other $3.5 trillion that this government spends is in the mandatory spending portion of the budget. It is not subject to annual appropriations. So I thank you for your mail and your suggestions about how we can reform spending at the Pentagon or reform spending in our national forests or our national parks, but $3.5 trillion is in mandatory spending which funds Social Security, Social Security Disability, Medicaid health care for the poor, Medicare health care for the elderly, and interest on our national debt--and these programs are essentially based on eligibility. Yet, many of us remain concerned about the size of our annual deficits--the total size of our national debt--particularly when you consider the size of the national debt to our total economy. We currently have about $19 trillion in outstanding debt of the United States with about $6 trillion of that owed to foreign investors outside the U.S., principally in Japan and China. This debt is a percentage of our GDP, that is $19 trillion, which is about 100 percent of GDP. Back in my twenties, when I worked for Senator Tower from Texas on the Senate Banking Committee, debt to GDP was about 30 percent. When I worked for President Bush 41 as a member of his White House staff for economic policy, our debt was about 50 or 60 percent of GDP. Now you know why after 20 years I remain so concerned, because it has now doubled. There is a lot of economic research that tells us about the dampening impact on our national growth rates if we have national debt at these kinds of levels. It saps capital alternatives to the private sector that can bring faster growth. Clearly, since the Great Recession of 2008, we have had low growth--well below what I believe should be the growth rate of this great economy. Likewise, we are at a time of low interest rates. Interest rates are likely on the rise. And while we are paying a modest amount of interest on that soon-to-be $19 trillion dollars today, the Congressional Budget Office believes that, as interest rates gradually increase over the next few months and years, interest will move from about $220 billion to $830 billion, Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years, surpassing what we spend as a nation on our national defense. So there is no doubt the Federal Government has grown too big and too complex and interferes too greatly. We must get our fiscal house in order. Mr. Speaker, eliminating waste and fraud will not do it. Raising taxes won't do it. I am always reminded by members of the opposition that insist that we can only balance our budget by raising taxes. Winston Churchill's favorite quote about taxes: ``We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift it himself by the handle.'' It is not going to do it, Mr. Speaker. This problem is too large and requires reform, and it requires this Congress to reform in the out-years and put us on the right track. Former Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen said in 2010, 6 years ago, Mr. Speaker, that the biggest national security problem facing the United States was the size of our national debt. So let me talk now, Mr. Speaker, about potential solutions that this Congress has to adopt working with our President-elect in the coming days, in the coming years, and in the early months of the Trump administration. First, Congress, heal thyself. We must reassert our Article I powers: the power of the purse; the power of the proper appropriations process. We don't need someone to impose that. We need to impose it on ourselves. We need to remind the American people to contact us, to help us return to regular order and return to the appropriations process. We need all 12 of those bills passed and we need to stop depending on continuing resolutions like we will this week. This is something I think that is fundamental. Let's talk about some of the reforms to that budget process tonight. In this Congress, I was proud to support the Biennial Budgeting and Enhanced Oversight Act, which was introduced by Reid Ribble of Wisconsin. If this bill passes, it would help the government fix our broken budget system by establishing a biennial budget cycle. I think this would provide Federal agencies with the kind of planning capability that would make them much more effective. We could identify cost savings, no doubt, in the important infrastructure area and long- term systems issues that we have, particularly in the Pentagon. This would be a large advantage. After reflecting on this, I support abolishing our Budget Committee process. Put in place in 1974, the intent was to have a way to rein in the executive. The Budget Act of 1974 was to help punish Richard Nixon. I believe that if we abolish the Budget Committee, we can allow our authorizing committees to serve both an authorizing and an appropriating function. We can eliminate redundancies in our Federal Government, and we can look inward in how we can eliminate also unnecessary procedures in Congress that waste time. In turn, our Appropriations Committee would oversee the budget resolutions, making sure that Congress spends no more than what we have approved in a budget resolution and that we can review individual ceilings for appropriating money for those government functions that don't require an authorization. I also support the idea of properly directing the Congressional Budget Office to account for, or score, in their terminology, for long- term investments as budget impacts versus just current-year spending. These ideas are not revolutionary; they are well known. We are stuck in the past, Mr. Speaker, and we must reform ourselves starting with this budget and appropriations process. In fact, these ideas are as old as my boss' suggestions. John Tower was a 24-year veteran of the Senate. He served on the Budget Committee and was chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate. These were his ideas upon his retirement in 1984 as to how to make the Congress more effective. The Congressional Budget Office relies on a set of government statistics including GDP growth, inflation, and tax receipts. It takes into accounts dynamic scoring. In my view, these things need to be done in a more proper way to better calculate the cost of legislation and the benefits for the economy. For example, CBO does not currently include interest payments on the debt when scoring new legislation. As previously mentioned, this interest will grow exponentially in the coming years, and now spending programs and reforms, in my view, ought to be calculated and take into account the agency costs and the carrying costs on our national debt. Another recommended reform to the CBO from our House Budget Committee would be to eliminate built-in discretionary inflation, removing the automatic extensions of expiring programs, and removing the current assumption that entitlement payments will continue at current levels even when their trust funds are predicted to be insolvent. These practices currently used by CBO result in automatic plus-ups for the baseline budget, and these reforms, in my view, will remove the current bias to ever higher spending levels. We ought to consider what we do in the private sector, Mr. Speaker, zero-based budgeting to assess what is really needed and not needed in our Federal agencies. What a great idea for Mr. Trump's incoming new Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Interior Department, let's go to zero-based budgeting. Let's have you justify to the Chief Financial Officer in the Interior Department every program, and then come to Congress with your recommendation of what we really should be doing at Interior or any other bureau or cabinet agency of the government. House and Senate bills have been introduced on this issue. Representative Duncan of Tennessee and Senator Thune of South Dakota would, I think, bring a lot of common sense. They would say that if private enterprises are performing activities duplicated by an arm of the Federal Government, then they would have the opportunity to compete for that work that Federal agencies unnecessarily handle in-house and, therefore, give better value to our taxpayers. IT investments--information technology--is a critical function in all of our private sector life. Yet, GAO, the Government Accountability Office, found that 75 percent of the technology budget for the Federal Government goes to just painting up and fixing aging technology rather than modernizing and going in a different direction on IT. They are actually still using floppy disks at the Pentagon and maintaining 1970s-era computer platforms. Look, that stuff ought to be in the Smithsonian, not at the Pentagon. The report notes that the Social Security systems that are used to determine our eligibility and our benefits are more than 30 years old and are based on COBOL computer language. Mr. Speaker, I used COBOL computer language when I was in college almost 40 years ago. We need that kind of reform in order to be competitive and provide services to our constituents and safe, cyber- ready protections. We have already witnessed the Office of Personnel Management losing people's identities and creating identify theft right in the middle of a Federal computer system that is supposed to be the best. Our chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, has expressed his support for modernizing our government's aging systems, calling it a vital part of infrastructure that we need in order to have a fully functional government. I couldn't agree more. We don't need to shortchange these agencies when it comes to delivering a safe, cyber-protected IT infrastructure. Last night I talked about the administrative state, the growth of regulation, and the cost of regulation exceeding that of all the revenues from the tax system. Let's talk about what we can do to rein in regulatory costs. The House passed a Separation of Powers Restoration Act in 2016, which would amend the Administrative Procedure Act, to require the courts to decide all de novo relevant questions of law, including the interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and rules. This bill would eliminate the Chevron deference, which, in my view, is blocking common sense being used and direction of this people's House and the Senate over our regulatory body. This is not a new topic, Mr. Speaker. James Madison in Federalist 51 discussed the need of each branch of government to guard against overreach by another. He stated that when an overreach occurs, ambition must be to counteract ambition. That is what we want to do in this House, Mr. Speaker. We have passed the REINS Act, Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. The REINS Act, which passed this act overwhelmingly, said that any major rule like those that I described last night that cost the economy more than $100 million would require coming back to Congress for approval. That will put the people's Representatives here in charge of the administrative state and not the other way around. I referenced a few minutes ago The Washington Post story about uncovering $125 billion of hidden-away, misdirected spending at the Pentagon that I awarded this month's Golden Fleece Award. I brought back the Golden Fleece from the seventies. It was created by Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin. It is that kind of thing that I think calls attention to egregious behavior by the Executive and allows us to have policy changes here. I commend former Senator Tom Coburn and his successor Senator Lankford for the same kind of work. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the subject of the Community Empowerment Initiative, something that I have spent a lot of time on in my district in Little Rock, finding ways to fight poverty and use the talents and time of the private sector to do that, and also to identify ways that we can find a better way to enhance the lives of American citizens, get them out of poverty, get them the education they need and the skills they need to succeed in our economy. This is the big challenge before the incoming Trump administration and this Congress. It is important that people have a vested interest in their community and have a sense of community engagement about how we do what I talked about last night, the idea that we let people closest to the problems solve those problems and not be dependent on one-size-fits-all challenges here. So, Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to have been reelected and continue to serve the citizens of Arkansas and our country. I am humbled to be asked to raise my hand on January 3 and again affirm my allegiance to our country and our beloved Constitution. Every Thursday morning, we assemble for the House prayer breakfast, and every Thursday morning I feel the prayers around our country, for our country. We in that group pray for all of our families. We pray for our men and women in uniform around our world protecting our liberties and our freedoms. I pray for each of the families in my district, that they have the health and prosperity and the ability to pursue happiness under our great Constitution. On behalf of my family, I wish all of the people of the Second Congressional District of Arkansas a blessed Christmas season. May God bless our troops overseas and our great Nation. General Leave

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

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. I thank the distinguished incoming chairman of the committee. I appreciate the time. I also thank my colleague in the Arkansas delegation, Senator Cotton, for his important work on S. 3076, which we are discussing today. I support it enthusiastically. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, July 25, 2015, U.S. Navy veteran and Little Rock resident Charles Duncan passed away at the age of 66, leaving behind a daughter, three grandsons, three great-grandsons, a brother, and a sister, along with many grieving family members, friends, and loved ones. Sadly, like too many of our veterans, Mr. Duncan was financially insolvent and could not afford the cost of his funeral. Thankfully, he was eligible for essential VA benefits to cover these costs. However, these benefits required that he be buried at the national cemetery in Fort Smith instead of close to his home and his family in Little Rock. By expanding the cemetery burial options that are offered by the VA to our veterans in need, we can provide families with the solace that they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and support the peaceful rest of the veterans we have lost.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) for his service and that of his spouse and family, for they made my welcome to Congress so agreeable and so appropriate, and I have enjoyed my service with Mr. Neugebauer on the House Financial Services Committee. You know, when I am home, one of the most frequent questions I get is to describe the major changes that I have seen in Washington since my previous work on Capitol Hill and in the executive branch. And yes, now it has been more than 24 years since I served in the administration of George H. W. Bush from 1989-1993, 24 years and three two-term Presidents--two Democrats, one Republican. Anyone familiar with life inside the beltway would certainly see that the city's traffic has become unbearable, and the number of places to eat has really been improved in those 24 years. But tonight I don't want to talk about the enrichment of life along The National Mall with new monuments to FDR and MLK and new visionary sites, such as the Native American Museum and now our African American Museum. Instead, it is not urbanization or nightlife that has happened that I noticed, that I talk about when I see my constituents, but it is really the changes I see in public policy as I wander back like Rip Van Winkle 20 years later to our Nation's Capital. The politics and productivity of the city are more stymied and less successful than in my experience in the executive branch, led by George H. W. Bush, or even in my service as a legislative aide on the Senate Banking Committee staff back during the days of the first term of President Reagan. Tonight I would like to outline my thoughts on those biggest differences I have seen in our Federal Government. These include the size and complexity and the unmanageable nature of the administrative state, the growth and unreformed nature of our mandatory spending programs, the failure of the Congress to meet its most fundamental constitutional responsibilities, that is, the oversight of the executive and the timely and thoughtful appropriations governed by the Appropriations Clause of our Constitution. At the end of this ``Rip Van Winkle'' overview, I will offer suggestions as to possible solutions to these challenges that we face in Washington. While I am a realist, I understand consensus is difficult in this city, and, while sensitive, my remarks tonight will appeal, in my view, to both Democrats and Republicans about how do we have an effective Federal Government, one that honors our constitutional limitations, the best intentions of our Founders, and demonstrates to the American people that their legislative and executive branches can work together for the long-term common good and the general welfare of this Nation. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, does a splendid job in enumerating the significant grievances that the American colonists had against King George III. Among them, my favorite of the ``Facts . . . submitted to a candid world": ``He,'' the king, ``has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.'' When I am visiting with our fellow citizens in the seven counties of the Second Congressional District of Arkansas, our doctors and hospital administrators, people who own small businesses, community bankers, high school and elementary schoolteachers, university administrators, highway contractors, small-town mayors, inevitably the size, scope, and complexity of the paperwork, micromanagement, and intrusion of the administrative state dominates that conversation. While other policy proposals from the tax and policy ideas to funding the need for our needed Federal programs, inevitably every conversation ultimately returns to how management and employees believe they are no longer focused on their missions to increase sales, produce profits, grow their business, educate kids, operate on patients, make loans to entrepreneurs and successful businesses, and help expand the American Dream. Instead, they are stuck in a world of three-ring binders, CYA activities, and a morass of paperwork and documentation--all possibly well-intentioned, but the bottom line is they take people away from their core mission and core values, drive up costs, reduce availability of credit to consumers, drive up prices for consumers, and, in many ways, cause Americans to be cynical about their government. In a 2015 article on New York City's broken bureaucracy, Phil Howard decried the red-tape jungle that doubles costs and postpones critical infrastructure projects in one of the greatest cities in the world. This is a fundamental issue today because President-elect Trump says we need to invest more in infrastructure. Look at the dollar per mile of road paved when you look at the costs added by the bureaucracy. In 1931, the construction of The Empire State Building was completed in 410 days, 12 days ahead of schedule. Today, just raising the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge in New York, besides absurd requirements to survey historic buildings within a 2-mile radius of an existing bridge that touched no buildings, it required 47 permits from 19 different agencies and a 5,000-page Federal environmental assessment and a city environmental review before a permit could even be issued. After 5 years, the project was sued for inadequate environmental review. Now the $1.3 billion project is not expected to be completed until 2017. We are talking about years, decades to raise the deck on the bridge that will increase traffic to New York Harbor that in no way endangers the environment or any other aspect. Peggy Noonan has said that Washington is turning America into the paperwork nation at odds with the American character of inventors, builders, innovators, and pioneers. I have a message for our President-elect. When you are involved in partnering with us in draining the swamp, it is a worthy goal, how about draining America's inbox and just leave our American people alone to innovate, employ people, and help grow this economy. This is why the Founders struggled so mightily over the proper role of the Federal versus State prerogatives in designing our Constitution. It is the core of why they settled upon the enumerated powers in our Constitution and left those other powers not so designated to the Federal Government to our States or entrusted to the people. Over recent years, the administrative state has eroded that trust the people have to make their own good choices. It is critical that we restore this trust and allow our local and State governments to tackle social and economic challenges with our people close to the problems and create a commonsense approach. So your old friend, Rip Van Winkle, here tonight has returned to the banks of the Potomac to see a great leviathan draped across the landscape. Called the administrative state, this beast now reigns supreme, uncaring, tone deaf, and its tentacles dedicated to one-size- fits-all edicts, and, in many ways, unresponsive even to the will of the people's representatives in the United States House and Senate. Phil Howard, who I referenced a few minutes ago, wrote two great books that I encourage everyone in our country to read: ``The Death of Common Sense'' and ``The Rule of Nobody,'' which succinctly outline the failures of this system that has been built up, calcified over the years, with no one in the system really responsible for asking: What is the right thing to do? Ultimately, then, no one is responsible for these failures of the administrative state. Instead, administrative officials have come to Capitol Hill and rarely offer testimony of value that adds to the debate, that informs the decisionmaking. A typical example can be seen in the 6 years of review and critique of the post-recession banking measure called the Dodd-Frank Act. Former Committee on Financial Services chair here in the House, Barney Frank, and author of this bill, principal architect, said that many things in this final act weren't right and required modifications, but a standard response from the Obama administration's financial officials at the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, or the Federal Reserve, or even the SEC, our securities commission, can be paraphrased simply as: Congress passed the law, we are implementing the law, period, full stop. That is not the right answer nor is it the right question. Standing for orthodoxy instead of what will benefit the American people, that should be their obligation, to help Congress design policies that help the American Dream flourish. Jefferson, envisioning our nation divided into States, counties, and townships, said: ``It is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good . . . is effected.'' Abraham Lincoln reminded our citizens that ``the legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all . . . `' I place emphasis on the nature of ``community of people'' whereby we buy into this longstanding philosophical position of subsidiarity, whereby solutions to problems or challenges are best decided and left to the community and that, if necessary, the government closest to the people band together with families and local associations to take action, not punt every decision to the Federal Government. At one time, such dedication to self-reliance and common sense were lauded as virtues, essential to the character of our Nation and of our people. Edmund Burke referred to the ``middling'' associations for doing good in England, and Alex de Tocqueville spoke reverently of Americans' insatiable ability to problem solve through the formation of associations of all kinds, that Americans were always finding themselves producing an association to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries out, to help create hospitals, prisons, and schools, all local communities coming together to do these things for themselves. In my first 2 years in Congress, I have witnessed firsthand the overwhelming size of the administrative state when compared to my earlier service on Capitol Hill and in President Bush 41's White House. First let's consider the sheer volume of rules that have been issued, estimated to cost our economy $100 million or more in net cost. Just under President Obama, we have witnessed over 600 rulemakings that exceed $100 million in threshold. Some, like the Clean Power Plan, many, many times that amount. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget, as of November 15, just a few days ago, noted there were 98 more midnight rules of the Obama administration; 17 of those hitting the $100 million mark of cost to our economy. The conservative American Action Forum has estimated that President Obama has imposed 40 percent more major rules than his predecessor and that the overall cost of the Obama administration's regulations on the American people stands at $813 billion. Likewise, consider the longer term. This chart illustrates the scope of these rulemakings as well as the long-term trend in publication of new rulemakings in the Federal Register, where all the government's actions are published for public dissemination and review. But still more than the sheer number and cost of these rulemakings is how intrusive they have become in daily lives or duplicative they are of another rule that was never repealed. That is why I found very appealing President-elect Trump said let's repeal rules before we make new ones. I wrote him recently, suggesting that he form a regulatory reform task force, like President Reagan did, and put Vice President Pence in charge of it to work with OMB and peel back this layer of duplicative costly regulation. These costs hurt consumers, and they hurt job creation. A mortgage application, a fundamental part of our American experience across this Nation for a first-time home buyer used to be about 100 pages. Now it is about 500 pages. I would argue the consumer is not materially better informed or better off with these additional pages. Instead, we have just added duplicative paperwork because it looks better. But on reflection, is that consumer better off? Is our Nation better off for that cost? Shouldn't these kinds of things use common sense? In 1994, I served on The Heritage Foundation's Advisory Council on Regulatory Reform. Twenty years ago, your old Rip Van Winkle friend here argued that the cost in 1994 of the Federal regulatory system was nearly $1.6 trillion annually. I compared it, then, to the personal income tax, what it raised, what we all contribute of about $1.2 trillion in 1994 dollars. The everyday government involvement in hardworking Americans' lives has only grown over those past two decades, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute's across-the-board cost estimate now for Federal regulations, including the impact of the Obama administration is nearly at $1.9 trillion per year, exceeding the cost of the individual income tax system and corporate tax revenues and quickly approaching--are you seated?--quickly approaching the entire amount of corporate pretax profits. The regulatory regime of the Federal Government is not just vast and costly, it is unnecessarily intrusive. In Arkansas, we have seen agency regulations have devastating effects on our farmers, our small businesses, nonprofits, schools, colleges, universities, and State agencies. No one is immune from the leviathan's overreach. Also in recent years, one has noted the expansion of the executive branch authority by increasing staff at the White House that is not subject to the confirmation of the United States Senate. While President Reagan had appointed one czar to work on drugs in the White House, President Obama has appointed 44 czars, with 35 of those not requiring confirmation by the United States Senate. By using executive orders or executive memoranda to carry out policies that exceed existing statutory authority and properly belong to the first branch of government, the legislative branch, here, President Obama has hit new heights in what historian Arthur Schlesinger termed ``the imperial Presidency.'' It is critical to note that it is not the numbers of executive orders that are meaningful as to the directives themselves and how far- reaching they are vis-a-vis that proper statutory authority. For example, if one utilizes data from the American Presidency Project and compares Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 with President Obama--all two-term Presidents--one finds President Reagan issued 381 executive orders; President Clinton, 364 executive orders; President Bush 43, 291; and President Obama at an apparently in line 260. But that is not the end of the story. President Obama has utilized a new measure that dodges publicity, transparency, and these statistics of the American Presidency Project: the Presidential memorandum. By the end of 2015, this most imperial of Presidents had issued 219 memoranda--these are just the ones that have been published in the Federal Register--and the White House memoranda tally at the end of 2015 was 476, for a total of more than 600 executive orders and Presidential directives. It can certainly be argued that Obama's executive action has far exceeded the scope and breadth of previous administrations. Even The Washington Post editorial board noted that the President's executive action on immigration in 2014 had no precedent and flew in the face of congressional intent. Indeed. The Federal courts, too, have recognized the excess of this administration with their blocking of the President's 2014 executive order on immigration, nationwide injunctions on the Department of Labor's overtime rule, injunctions on the EPA's waters of the United States rule, and finally, the current legal battle over the Clean Power Plan. So, while I have certainly seen, in my two decades of being out of the Potomac arena, a growing trend in the administrative state by way of executive actions that skirt the Administrative Procedure Act and public comment, this administration has also aggressively attempted to avoid publicly vetted rulemaking by something even, in my judgment, more nefarious to our constitutional freedoms, and that is creating regulation by enforcement action. In my first 2 years in Congress, this has happened at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice and clearly skirts the statutory traditions of the United States and the role of the Administrative Procedure Act. One of the economically chilling issues related to this contains the use of settlement trust funds, whereby the Department of Justice or other agencies of government choose to settle Federal civil actions against companies or individuals through a settlement procedure, as opposed to going to trial, and then assess a major monetary penalty which, instead of being paid to the victims, is paid to politically favored interest groups. These activists, in turn, bring more lawsuits to feather their own nests. And if this isn't crony coercion, with its pernicious effect on the economy and a chilling effect on all innovation and economic growth, I don't know what is. It is certainly not in keeping with 70, 80 years of tradition under the Administrative Procedure Act. My former colleague and White House counsel to President Bush 41, Ambassador C. Boyden Gray, stated in his testimony, before the House Financial Services Committee, about the dangers of an executive with access to the Treasury. That is clearly what these slush funds are. The need to ensure separation of powers and power of the purse are firmly in the hands of Congress, not the executive. Mr. Gray stated: ``Every other constitutional power runs into the appropriations power,'' and that throughout our history, ``presidents have `consistently endeavored to seize the appropriations powers from Congress.''' This is where you get into the intention that our Founders anticipated. Federalist 51: when one branch of government gets too big for their breeches, it needs to be countered by another branch of government. This overreach by the executive needs to be responded to by the first branch, the legislative branch, and make sure that we, in fact, consistently authorize our appropriations responsibly. To close this discussion of the administrative state, let's consider a primary example of growth of the state where Congress does not have an opportunity to safeguard its legislative and appropriation and oversight responsibility. People's exhibit A is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the Dodd-Frank Act, I mentioned a few minutes ago, in my view, the Congress mistakenly created a funding source for the CFPB not subject to the appropriations that are actually set aside. Instead, it is a fixed amount of income out of the Federal Reserve system hidden away from Congress' oversight that normally would be paid directly to the Treasury. Instead, it is diverted to the CFPB, and it gives an agency independence like you can't see anywhere else. It is a violation, in my view, of our appropriations responsibility. The Director can't be fired, so it is a violation of our oversight responsibility. I was pleased, this October, that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled in the PHH mortgage case that the CFPB's sole Director position possesses unchecked ``unilateral power'' and calls the Director ``the single most powerful official in the entire United States Government.'' I am sorry, what? The single most powerful official in the United States Government. Gosh, I thought that was the President, the Speaker of the House. No, no, no. It is a guy at the CFPB. In fact, they acted in an unconstitutional manner. So I am with the District of Columbia court, and I have no doubt that the pending case, State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, challenging the CFPB's unconstitutionality will be noted as well. So, Mr. Speaker, these are some of my observations about the growth of the administrative state. I have no doubt that, when I come back to this floor, I will continue this discussion and offer solutions about what we need to do in Congress, in the legislative branch, and in the executive branch to make sure that we are upholding our obligation to our voters, our citizens, the people who have elected us, who have sent us here to represent their interests--hardworking people like Randy Neugebauer that we lauded a few minutes ago for his extraordinary service to the 19th District of Texas. Our administrative state is unmanageable, and it deserves to be reined in. As a freshman, soon-to-be sophomore, a second-term Member of this body, I am going to fight for those changes that return the power to the people's House and the people's Senate as it relates to oversight of the executive and the appropriations method. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman and congratulate him on this constructive bill. This bill today is not about dangerous agendas, greed, signing bonuses, or wholesale exemptions of regulation for 27 big banks--not at all. This bill is about using common sense and taking off the autopilot that is in Dodd-Frank, which designates our SIFIs on size alone. In fact, it includes all the factors that should be considered for institutions that might present a systemic risk. This is a bipartisan bill that has support on both sides of the aisle. Former Chairman Frank's comments have been read into the Record, but how about Governor Dan Tarullo: ``Resolution planning and the quite elaborate requirements of our supervisory stress testing process do not seem to me to be necessary for banks between $50 billion and $100 billion in assets.'' Tom Curry, our comptroller of the currency: ``The better approach is to use an asset figure as a first screen and give discretion to the supervisors based on the risks in the business plan and operations.'' And Senator Sherrod Brown, certainly a supporter of Dodd-Frank: ``I do agree that some banks above $50 billion should not be regulated like Wall Street megabanks.'' I support this bill.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Director Jonathan Jarvis on his impressive career preserving some of our Nation's most treasured places as Director of the National Park Service. Director Jarvis serves as the 18th director in the NPS history and developed his love for national parks at a young age, with his family's farm tucked in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley backing up to the Washington National Forest. A Virginia native, Director Jarvis graduated from the College of William and Mary with a degree in biology and began his career as a seasonal interpretive ranger on the National Mall in 1976. As Director, he oversees an agency responsible for over 400 national parks, attracting some 280 million visitors each year. Recently, while on the grounds of Teddy Roosevelt's beloved home, Sagamore Hill, I was pleased to hear his vision for the essential role of parks in our national life. At the end of this year, the centennial year of the National Park Service, Director Jarvis will retire after 40 years of service. I extend my warmest regards and best wishes to Director Jarvis in this next chapter of his life. Happy trails.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, who says pitchers can't hit? I rise today to recognize Travis Wood of the World Champion Chicago Cubs, who became the first relief pitcher since 1924 to hit a home run. Born and raised in Little Rock, Travis attended Bryant High School, where he starred in baseball and football. He led Bryant to a State championship during his junior season and was Arkansas Gatorade Player of the Year in 2004 and 2005. Choosing to go straight to professional baseball out of high school, Travis was drafted 60th overall in the 2005 MLB draft by the Cincinnati Reds. Beginning his career with the Cubs in 2012, Travis soon became a key part of their bullpen and was named to his first All-Star selection in 2013. During the Cubs' championship 2016 season, Travis posted a 4-0 record with a 2.95 ERA in 77 appearances. Congratulations on a great season, and I look forward to following your continued success. Let's not wait another 100 years.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. It is the mission of Iran to use these aircraft for nefarious purposes. We already have that guilt on our hands by the release of $100 billion and $1.7 billion in cash. Let's not compound the errors of the past by opposing this bill, which will limit taxpayer risk and our financial sector risk at financing aircraft to Iran.

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for yielding. I rise in strong support of H.R. 5711. And I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who serves on our committee, for his leadership on this measure and consistently works on matters concerning Iran, as well as Mr. Roskam of Illinois. I was proud to be a member this past Congress on the Financial Services Committee Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing. During our hearings, Mr. Speaker, we heard numerous witnesses describe Iran's support for terrorism and other evil activities. It is really staggering, Mr. Speaker, that we sit here tonight and we have a Member of the other party suggest that Iran is a friend to the United States. There is no friendship between Iran and the United States or our allies. I think that is a stunning thing to say on the House floor. You have heard tonight about Iran's direct involvement in conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Yemen; their support of Hamas, Hezbollah. And one of the main methods they use to support their terrorist activities around the world is they are flying commercial aircraft by the Quds Force around this world supporting terrorism, supplying Assad in Syria, who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds. This deal is not about blocking airplane sales, Mr. Speaker. This deal is about protecting taxpayers on financing airplane sales, protecting our banks in the financing of airplane sales. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has already provided the Government of Iran, the mullahs in Iran over $100 billion in freed-up cash and has given them $1.7 billion in Euros in cash on pallets. Let them use that to buy an aircraft. Let's assume they cost $100 million, $150 million. They can buy several aircraft and pay cash, thanks to the failed diplomacy of the Obama administration. So, again, this legislation is about the belief that the United States should not directly support terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, as the Natural State, Arkansas's outdoor recreation and natural beauty draws millions of visitors each year, contributing to our state's economy and supporting thousands of jobs. Yesterday, the House passed the Outdoor Recreation's Economic Contributions Act, which would result in our Nation measuring the economic impact of our outdoor recreation industry, providing Americans with important information on this vital part of the U.S. economy. This bill would give our federal, state, and local governments the ability to more fully analyze the benefits that outdoor recreation provides so that we may better support our parks and outdoor areas for the enjoyment of all Americans. In Arkansas, the Department of Parks and Tourism also provides important funding to improve the management and quality of our state's outdoor recreation areas through the Outdoor Recreation Grants Program. Through important policies and programs on our federal, state, and local levels, we can continue to support the great outdoors and encourage more Americans to visit and access our country's vast network of parks, forests, and trails.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Forest Park Elementary School for over 100 years of success in central Arkansas. Built in 1913, Forest Park offers a variety of educational clubs and experiences that support life skills and encourage teamwork, good sportsmanship and academic growth. I loved my elementary school years at Forest Park, and I am happy that my children enjoyed a fine experience in those halls as well. Located in the heart of Little Rock, Forest Park is led by Principal Theresa Courtney-Ketcher and serves 460 students in pre-K through fifth grade. During the 2013-2014 school year, Forest Park was recognized as a National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence by the U.S. Department of Education. This school is consistently a top ranked elementary school in Arkansas. I would like to extend my congratulations to Principal Courtney- Ketcher, Forest Park Elementary and its faculty, and wish it much continued success in the generations to come.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of September as National Wilderness Month. This month we marked the 52nd anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964, which created our National Wilderness Preservation System and established the procedure for designating federal lands as wilderness by Congress. Earlier this year, Congress was blessed with a visit from Pope Francis, who took his papal name from St. Francis of Assisi, the protector of the proper joyful balance in care for the earth. In his encyclical, the Holy Father notes St. Francis's request that ``part of the friary garden was always left untouched,'' just like America's extraordinary wilderness. Arkansas is home to 12 of these unique wilderness areas, including the Flatside Wilderness in the Ouachita National Forest. In March, I was joined by Arkansas Rep. Rick Beck, members of the Boy Scouts, the Ozark Society, the Sierra Club, and representatives from the U.S. Forest Service on a six mile hike through Flatside, enjoying the serene beauty of this area left wild. During National Wilderness Month, we recognize these wilderness areas in our great country and the need to preserve them for future generations of Americans.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of one of Arkansas' greats in the entertainment industry, Lasker `Las' Bell, who passed away earlier this month at the age of 88. Las moved to Camden, Arkansas in search of work, and after an honorable discharge from the U.S. Army was hired to host El Dorados KJWH radio's first soul music radio show. Moving to television, he pitched his American Bandstand-like show the Las Bell Variety Show that became part of the weekly lineup on KTVE. At the time, Las was the only Black television host between Memphis and Dallas, and became the first Black interviewer for Channel 10 News in Arkansas. Las was also involved in the community, serving on the executive board for the Arkansas Council on Human Relations in Ouachita County. He was also appointed to the Human Resources Commission by Governor David Pryor, and reappointed under Governor Frank White. Las left a lasting impact on our state and will be greatly missed by all of Arkansas. I extend my respect, affection and prayers to his family and loved ones.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate Arkansas State University-Beebe's Searcy Campus on its 50th anniversary. Formerly Foothills Vocational Technical School, the Searcy campus opened in 1966 with 17 employees. Dedicated in 1967 by Governor Winthrop Rockefeller, the focus of the campus was to provide its students with a skilled trade that would prepare them to enter the workforce upon graduation. In 2003, Foothills Technical Institute merged with ASU-Beebe, forming its second technical campus. Today, the Searcy campus serves both traditional and non-traditional students earning their GEDs, technical certificates, or associate degrees, providing many students with the skills, education, and training necessary to obtain employment and start a career. I would like to extend my congratulations to ASU-Beebe's Searcy campus and wish it much continued success for generations to come.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the important collaboration that is taking place in central Arkansas. The Venture Center in downtown Little Rock has been working with the publicly traded financial services company, Fidelity Information Systems, or FIS, to launch the VC FinTech Accelerator, a program that will bring innovators and entrepreneurs from across the world to Little Rock, where they will have formation opportunities for their early- stage organizations. They will work through a curriculum designed to engender creativity, development, and potential. Through this program, we are able to invest in the future of our State and ensure that our economy and our business environment in central Arkansas will continue to thrive and expand. I recently had the opportunity to visit The Venture Center with the gentlewoman from Missouri, Representative Ann Wagner, and was impressed with the success of the center's accelerator program. It is providing a 12-week rigorous program to assist FinTech startups, providing them with quality business development services. Ten FinTech companies were chosen to participate in this first accelerator program, and it will relaunch in 2017. This FinTech sandbox is producing transformational opportunities for both FIS, the innovative entrepreneurs in Little Rock, and for future consumers of these services. While this exciting program has only been active for a short time, it is already proving that it has the ability to assist in our efforts to grow the technology economy across our region. Little Rock's storied history and the evolution of FIS makes it a perfect site for this accelerator. I greatly appreciate the choice of Little Rock as the location to implement this source of future economic growth. I am grateful for the farsighted leadership at FIS, our chamber of commerce leadership team, and all those involved in making this program a success for central Arkansas.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. I thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5461 today, and I am a proud original cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Poliquin's approach is simply a commonsense thing to do. When you consider that this administration, 6 years ago, turned its back on the Iranian people when they were trying to protest their notorious regime and take to the streets, but then instead of aiding those citizens, they turned their back on the people of Iran to negotiate with the ayatollahs what I believe to be an ill-conceived and poorly designed nuclear deal. My friend from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) makes the point of asset transparency and argues that this bill would not, in fact, help advance the transparency of the Quds Force or the aggregation of these assets in the hands of these 80 individuals. But, in fact, if the administration was serious about transparency, they would not give the largest state sponsor of terrorism $1.7 billion in Swiss francs and euros to become an untraceable honey pot for the purchase of ballistic missile components or fund terrorism in the West Bank or back Assad. Representative Price of North Carolina talks about this act actually strengthening the hard-liners. I would argue, if this is strengthening the hardliners, what, in fact, did the JCPOA accomplish when we report a 50 percent increase in incursions from the Iranian military in our air and sea activities in the Persian Gulf? The hard-liners in Iran called the payment of $1.7 billion a ransom-- not the people of the United States. In fact, they have taken two more additional hostages as a result of this administration's process. If we are not strengthening the hard-liners, then why is Iran doubling down on acquiring ballistic missile technology and backing the absolute destruction of Syria? So, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a commonsense measure that will let the people of Iran see what the 80 powerful individuals are doing with the billions that have been freed up to come back to the people, to the country of Iran. Street paving is not going on, Mr. Chairman. What is going on is the expansion of terrorism and billions in untraceable money backing a regime that our own State Department and Treasury says is undiminished in their sponsor of terrorism worldwide. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Poliquin's commonsense bill.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 525, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to welcome today's guest chaplain and my good friend, Reverend Phillip Pointer, or ``Pastor P'' as he is known throughout our community. Realizing his love for preaching the ministry as a teen, Pastor P earned his Doctor of Ministry from United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, and his Master of Divinity with honors from The Samuel Dewitt Proctor School of Theology at Virginia Union University in Richmond, Virginia. Having devoted much of his life to the church, Pastor Pointer found his way to Saint Mark Baptist Church in my hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas, in 2012, after 10 years as pastor of St. John Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia. As a loving husband and father, Pastor P understands the challenge in balancing his responsibility to the church and to his family. At Saint Mark Baptist Church, Pastor P highlights the importance of our youth, with the church, adopting the motto ``You. Grow. Here.'' to advance a safe, loving environment for families and children. Within 2 years of Pastor P's time as senior pastor of the church, a new youth center was built to give Saint Mark kids a safe environment to learn and play. Pastor P is the proud husband of his wife, Keya, and he is the loving father of their three children, Gabie, P.J., and Elijah. I want to thank Pastor Pointer for gracing us with a wonderful opening prayer, and I wish him, his family, and Saint Mark Baptist Church continued success in the Little Rock community.

Mr. HILL

Mr. HILL. I thank the Congresswoman from Arizona, my distinguished colleague on the House Financial Services Committee. I thank the gentlewoman for calling attention to all the Members in the House in this hallowed Chamber on this very, very important topic. So I thank the gentlewoman for inviting us to share. Mr. Speaker, in 2013, a documentary about the Veterans Crisis Line aired on HBO. Winning an Academy Award for Best Short Subject Documentary in 2015, ``Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1'' highlighted the suicide crisis that we are talking about here tonight. It talked about the crisis that is facing our Nation's veterans and the men and women who are employed by the hotline that have devoted their time and their expertise in listening to our veterans and trying to aid them in their moment of crisis. Too many times, these calls are ones of last resort, with our veterans having nowhere else to turn and no one else to help them. Over the years, we have continued to hear of the tragic crisis facing our veterans who continue to suffer from the invisible wounds of war that wreak havoc on their minds, destroy families, and, sadly, claim the lives of an average of some 20 veterans every day. Arkansas' Second Congressional District is home to many of our brave veterans from the conflicts of our country. Many servicemembers currently who serve at Little Rock Air Force Base and at Camp Robinson and our veterans in central Arkansas are fortunate to have one of the top facilities in the entire country when it comes to treating mental health issues. The Towbin Healthcare Center, more commonly known as Fort Roots, located in north Little Rock, Arkansas, provides our local veterans with mental health care facilities and services that have received national attention on ``60 Minutes.'' The doctors at Fort Roots, their innovation, their success with post-traumatic stress disorder, and their treatments have gotten that kind of national recognition. The management, the doctors, and the rank-and-file employees work tirelessly to give our veterans suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injury a chance for rehabilitation and for getting back and getting on with their lives and their families. The Central Arkansas Veterans Mental Health Council has also partnered with veterans, their families, and the central Arkansas community to help address this ongoing crisis and better help serve the mental health needs of our Arkansas veterans. In Congress, we are working together on a bipartisan basis to enact policies that help our veterans and reform our mental health care system. Last year, the House passed with bipartisan support and the President signed into law the Clay Hunt SAV Act to increase access to mental health care for veterans and ensure the accountability of our Federal agencies in providing essential suicide prevention services. The bill's namesake, a marine veteran from Houston, Texas, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, Clay Hunt took his own life at the age of 28 in 2011, after a years-long struggle with PTSD that he had suffered as a result of his brave service to our country. We are also working to better address the mental health needs of our entire country through the passage of the Helping Families In Mental Health Crisis Act, which was on the House floor earlier this summer. This landmark bill, introduced by our colleague, Representative Murphy from Pennsylvania, was cosponsored by over 200 bipartisan Members of the House and addresses our seriously outdated mental health care system by refocusing and retooling our mental health programs, clarifying our privacy laws to ensure healthcare professionals can communicate with caregivers, and addressing the shortages in our mental health workforce and treatment facilities. In the debate on that bill, it was stunning to learn that in the mid- 1970s we had some half a million mental healthcare beds in this country, and now we have some 50,000. It is sad to hear the stories of parents of adult children who have lost them because of the lack of communication and the lack of service in some of our States in mental health. I commend Congressman Murphy for helping lead and build a major bipartisan coalition on this important topic. But all of us together--and I again thank the Congresswoman from Arizona--we all must work together and continue to move forward with thoughtful and effective legislation on the issue of mental health and mental health access and do what we can to save the lives of our veterans and reverse this deadly trend of suicides. I am proud to join my colleagues this evening to discuss this important matter, and I am committed to ensuring that all of our veterans, our servicemembers, and their families receive the care and information they need to prevent suicide and help them heal and recover from these invisible wounds of war. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Sinema for this time. I thank the gentlewoman for the opportunity to share this part of the evening with her, and I commend the gentlewoman for her leadership.