Joseph Heck

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, 71 years ago today, President Roosevelt inducted over 40,000 Filipino troops into the United States Army to counter the Japanese threat. Following the occupation of the Philippines, thousands more Filipinos would join the resistance as recognized guerrilla forces working in cooperation with the U.S. Army. However, due to the Rescissions Act of 1946, the service and sacrifice of these brave Filipino veterans would go unrecognized by the U.S. Government for the next 63 years. Congress finally acknowledged the dedicated service of these veterans when it established the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund in 2009. Although meager in comparison to the benefits these veterans earned, this compensation fund provided the recognition they deserved. Yet today, bureaucratic roadblocks continue to prevent nearly 4,000 of these aging World War II veterans from collecting the benefits they are due. Five of these gentlemen pictured here reside in my district. They range in age from 83 to 100 years old. Regrettably, two others recently passed away. Many more will pass without ever obtaining the recognition they deserve if this body does not act to remove the barriers preventing these veterans from receiving the benefits they have earned. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting to ensure these honorable World War II veterans are appropriately recognized.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to call on the administration to inform the American people how they intend to implement the sequester cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act. With the failure of the supercommittee, we now face defense cuts that everyone agrees are far too steep. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said that cutting military spending by an additional $500 billion ``would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families, and our military's ability to protect the Nation.'' Cuts of this nature would result in us having the smallest ground force since World War II, the smallest Navy since World War I, and the smallest tactical Air Force since the Air Force was created in 1948. Independent economists have testified before the House Armed Services Committee that these cuts will cause massive job losses, including as many as 4,000 in my State of Nevada, which already suffers from the highest unemployment rate in the Nation. The House has passed a plan to replace these devastating cuts, maintain national security, and prevent job losses. Today, I urge the administration to outline its plan for addressing this situation.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. I thank the chair. Mr. Speaker, just because a law is constitutional, it doesn't mean it's a good law. Just because a law is well intentioned, it doesn't mean that it fulfills its promises. As a physician, I've heard firsthand from patients who have serious concerns about the so-called Affordable Care Act, that it would actually reduce access to affordable high quality health care by enacting substantial new taxes, creating thousands of pages of new regulations, and most alarmingly, putting unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats in between patients and their doctors. Millions of Americans were assured that if they liked their health plan, they could keep it. Yet, our committee has heard testimony from businesses large and small that the increased costs of providing health coverage for employees is simply unsustainable. I've talked with business owners in my own district that want to continue to provide coverage for their employees, but the health care law is making that harder. These so-called ``small business tax credits'' phase out so quickly after you get above 10 employees or you start to increase wages that it's a disincentive to grow a business. Further, the Supreme Court's ruling highlights an uncomfortable truth for the law's supporters. This law stands only because the individual mandate is considered a tax, even though proponents repeatedly insisted it was not. Mr. Speaker, we were told Congress had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. What we found was a bait and switch of unprecedented proportions. I strongly believe that we should ensure that patients with preexisting conditions have affordable insurance options, that annual or lifetime limits don't prevent Americans from receiving the care and treatment they need, and that young adults have access to insurance, especially in difficult economic times. That's why I've introduced replacement legislation to do exactly that, without a government takeover of the system. We need to repeal this law and move forward with reasonable, bipartisan, patient-centered reforms that restore the government to its proper role in our health care system and ensure that our patients, their families, and their doctors have the ability to decide what care is most appropriate. It's for those reasons that I strongly urge support of H.R. 6079.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join with me in restoring the honor and valor of our military heroes by cosponsoring my bill, H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011. While yesterday our attention was focused on the Supreme Court health care ruling, lost in the media frenzy was the story of how the Court also struck down the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, concluding that the broad nature of the law infringed upon the guaranteed protection of free speech provided by the First Amendment of our Constitution. The Court determined that the act ``sought to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject, without regard as to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain.'' The Stolen Valor Act of 2011 resolves these constitutional issues by clearly defining that the objective of the law is to target and punish those who misrepresent their service with the intent of profiting personally or financially. Defining the intent helps ensure that this law will pass constitutional scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, the need to protect the honor, service, and sacrifice of our veterans and military personnel is just as strong today as it was in 2005. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1775 so that we can restore the honor and protect the valor of our military heroes.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. I thank my colleague from Tennessee and my fellow health care practitioner for heading up this most important discussion this evening. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about something that a majority of Americans actually already know. The health care overhaul that was forced through Congress on a party line vote in the dead of night with special interest provisions like the ``Cornhusker kickback'' and the ``Louisiana purchase'' is a bad piece of legislation that should be repealed. In fact, a recent New York Times poll showed that 68 percent of respondents want to see the law partially or fully repealed. It's no surprise that the American people are frustrated and want to scrap this law and start over. The law has failed to deliver on all of its major promises. We were told that the law would reduce costs, reduce the deficit, create jobs, and allow people who liked their insurance plan to stay on it. Well, we now know that it has fallen far short of these goals as we continue to read stories and studies outlining just how harmful this law will be for patients and for the economy. We know that this law will not reduce the deficit. In March, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in which they projected the costs of the health care overhaul out to the year 2022. They found that the bill will cost $1.7 trillion between now and then. That is twice as much as the bill was originally intended to cost. And this, of course, would be added to a national debt of over $15 trillion. We know this law will hurt access to care for patients, especially our seniors. In addition to gimmick accounting that essentially cuts $500 billion from Medicare and disproportionately affecting Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, the health care overhaul established the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This board of unelected Washington bureaucrats, this Medicare IRS, will be handpicked by the administration to cut funding for Medicare. Make no mistake about it. The bill is very clear about the aim of this board, and I quote: It is the purpose of this section to, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending. The board will be unaccountable to the American people. It will be unaccountable to the Congress, and it will even be unaccountable to the President, and will stand between seniors and the services they receive from Medicare. As a doctor, I fear that when forced to reduce the Medicare costs, the actions of this board will have serious implications for access to care for seniors. That is not what my constituents and the people of Nevada want in a health care system. We know that this law is going to increase health care costs for patients. As was mentioned, we just voted to repeal the medical device tax contained in the health care overhaul, one of many such taxes contained therein, that would have imposed a 2.3 percent tax on medical device manufacturers and was projected to increase taxes by $28.5 million over the next 10 years. This tax would result in higher costs for medical device manufacturers and would be passed on to patients in the form of more expensive medical bills. Increased costs for doctor and hospital visits will widen the access to care gap, even as individuals and families are struggling to keep pace with the current skyrocketing health care costs. In my home State of Nevada, this increased tax on device manufacturers would put over 1,000 jobs at risk. We know that this law will cause people to be dropped from coverage plans that they like. I have heard from concerned small businesses in my own district like Imagine Communications, a marketing firm in Henderson, Nevada, that employs 11 people. When they started out, they paid 100 percent of their employees' insurance premiums because they saw it as a way to attract and retain quality employees. But due to skyrocketing costs, they have been forced to cut back to only providing 50 percent of premiums, and they hope they can continue to do just that. But the way things are going, they aren't sure how much longer they will be able to be sustainable. They are looking at having to drop employees from coverage because of the increased cost of providing insurance. As we stand here today, we await a landmark ruling from the highest court in the country on whether key components of the law are even constitutional. The individual mandate, the provision that forces every American to buy insurance or pay a fine, a tax, is the wrong approach to take on health care reform. Instead of penalizing nonaction, we should be incentivizing people to take responsible action in making their own personal health care decisions. I stand with the nearly 70 percent of Americans who want to see this law repealed and replaced with commonsense, patient-centered reforms that truly increase access to primary care and help people avoid costly procedures and trips to the emergency departments. Instead of injecting more government into our health care system, our focus should be on patients, especially our seniors who rely on access to quality health care. Our system is working for most Americans. Almost 85 percent have health insurance, and it can work for all Americans through commonsense reforms like moving coverage towards an individual-based model, increasing competition by allowing the purchase of insurance across State lines, incentivizing the purchase of insurance through tax credits, reforming medical malpractice laws, and letting people, not government, decide what services they need and want. Second chances don't come along very often, Mr. Speaker, but we have before us a great opportunity to get health care reform right. As a practicing emergency medicine physician, I have worked on the front lines of health care, caring for all, regardless of chief complaint, time of day, or ability to pay. I have seen firsthand what works and what doesn't work in our health care system. That's why I've introduced two pieces of legislation aimed at repealing the onerous provisions that hurt individuals and businesses, repairing the elements of the law that have merit, and replacing the broken pieces of the law with reasonable reforms and strengthening Medicare. I look forward to advancing these pieces of legislation in the wake of the Court's decision. We have the best health care system in the world, and we should look for ways to include as many Americans as possible in it. But we also have a duty to uphold the Constitution and pass laws that will achieve their stated goal. The Affordable Care Act missed the mark in both respects, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in delivering a health care solution that will benefit the American people. Again, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for organizing this Special Order.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding career of Dr. John W. Becher, or ``Chief'' as he was called by scores of medical residents, an osteopathic physician who has dedicated his life to his patients, his students, and to the improvement of the medical profession. Dr. Becher's commitment to the field of emergency medicine spans more than 30 years. As professor and chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, he has helped countless students and residents, myself included, develop their skills and become an essential part of our health care workforce. As a young resident at Albert Einstein Medical Center, I was fortunate to have Dr. Becher's insight and guidance as my residency director. His dedication to emergency medicine was evident then, and his understanding of the osteopathic profession was invaluable to my training and to my career. His involvement in the field of osteopathic medicine is unparalleled. In addition to his work at PCOM, he currently serves as the secretary treasurer of the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners and is a member of the board of trustees for the American Osteopathic Association. He was a member of the editorial board of the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association for nearly 20 years, and he is the past president of the American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians-- and these are only some of his accomplishments. His never-ending contributions and service to his profession and his patients have rightly been recognized, most recently by the awarding of the O.J. Snyder Memorial Medal. Dr. Becher's lifelong commitment to patient care and to the excellence of future physicians serves as a powerful legacy to the field of emergency medicine. I consider myself fortunate to have learned under his leadership, and it is an honor to recognize his achievements. Chief, my sincere congratulations on your well-deserved retirement.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their assistance in moving forward with this important piece of legislation. I rise in support of H.R. 2512, the Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act of 2012, legislation I introduced with the support of the entire Nevada delegation, to address a serious environmental, public safety, and abandoned mine reclamation issue in the city of Henderson, Nevada. The Three Kids mine is an abandoned manganese mine and mill site consisting of approximately 1,262 acres of both Federal and private lands which lie within the Henderson City limits and is literally across the street from Lake Mead Parkway where there is an increasing number of homes and businesses. The Three Kids mine was owned and operated by various parties over the years, including the United States, from approximately 1917 through 1961, and used as a storage area for Federal manganese ore reserves from the late 1950s through 2003. The project site contains numerous large, unstable sheer-cliff open pits as deep as 400 feet, huge volumes of mine overburden/ tailings, mill facility remnants, and waste disposal areas. To give a sense of scale, mine overburden is 10 stories high in some areas; abandoned waste ponds are up to 60 feet deep and filled with over 1 million cubic yards of gelatinous tailings containing high concentrations of arsenic, lead, and petroleum compounds. H.R. 2512 provides an innovative solution for cleaning up the Three Kids mine site. In its simplest form, the legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Federal lands at the project site--approximately 948 acres--at fair market value, taking into account the costs of investigating and remediating the entire site, which includes an additional 314 acres of now-private lands that were used historically in mine operations. It is important to note that the government will receive a release of liability for cleanup of both the Federal and private lands. Under the legislation, before the Federal lands are conveyed, the State must enter into a binding consent agreement under which the cleanup of the entire project site will occur. The consent agreement must include financial assurances to ensure the completion of the remediation and reclamation of the site. The cleanup will be financed with private capital and Nevada tax increment financing at no cost to the Federal Government. The Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act is the result of over 4 years of work among the city of Henderson Redevelopment Agency, the Department of the Interior, the State of Nevada, and private entities. This legislation is a unique and complex public-private partnership proposal. It will finally lead to the cleanup of the Three Kids mine site at no cost to the Federal Government, while at the same time providing for economic development and the creation of as many as 3,000 jobs. I believe that this initiative offers a viable solution for the cleanup and reclamation of the Three Kids mine and could serve as a model for other similar sites across the country. This legislation is a win for the economy, it is a win for the environment, and it is a win for the Federal taxpayer. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 5743, the Fiscal Year 2013 Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill strikes the appropriate balance between the necessity for fiscal restraint and providing our intelligence community the resources they need so that they can continue to play a vital role in our national security. This is especially true in the technical collection systems that are the focus of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence. H.R. 5743 puts the focus on how well our entire technical collection architecture systems work together. In the past, we have had a tendency to focus on a few large acquisition programs and not on the total capability that all systems bring to the nation. This bill leverages advancements in technology by making changes that are focused on ensuring collection platforms work together to simultaneously collect and correlate data. Additionally, through funding for the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency programs, this bill incrementally advances the ability to coordinate collection across a diverse set of collection platforms that are fielded by the intelligence and military communities. H.R. 5743 also takes an important first step toward reducing the cost of launch, and encourages the further development of commercial launch services. While the cost of getting to space has not traditionally been the focus of the intelligence community, these essential reforms will allow us to reallocate these savings to our Nation's core intelligence missions. Mr. Chairman, again I urge support of H.R. 5743. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. I, too, rise in opposition to the amendment. Like my colleague from Georgia, I am also an active reservist and a physician in the military. We are fortunate that we now have an all-volunteer force. Indeed, we are blessed that we have such capable men and women that are willing to put on the uniform. But as we start to have a drawdown, as we start to go through total force management, we want to make sure that we keep opportunities for those that are the brightest, the most capable, and the fittest for the longest period of time. I will tell you that being a physician in the Reserves is a lot different than enlisting in the active duty force. Going through initial entry training, military occupational specialty training is a very rigorous course of instruction. As a physician, I have concerns. I think that while well-intended, the Secretary has already had the ability to grant waivers for exigent circumstances and when in the best interest of the Department of Defense and that this amendment is not required.

Mr. HECK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the gentleman from Indiana's amendment. I applaud his intent of trying to remove the stigma of seeking mental health services in the military. Again, as a physician in the Army Reserves, I've experienced the issues that he's trying to address here this evening. But I also have to agree with my colleagues that have brought up the issues regarding the impact on the commander's ability to make a truthful and honest recommendation for promotion. Having had the honor to command and having had the opportunity to serve on promotion boards, I know that this information is vitally important. It's hard to draw the distinction as to whether or not you're using the information that the person sought care or was it because of the behavior that that person demonstrated that caused them to seek the care. Nonetheless, that information is vital. When a physical profile or medical profile form is included in a packet that shows there's a duty restriction, perhaps because of a psychiatric disturbance or for a generally physical disturbance, that information is taken into consideration when determining whether or not that individual is fit for promotion and the duties that would be assigned subsequent to that promotion. Again, I applaud my colleague's intent, but I think the answer to this is better education of our servicemembers to rid ourselves of this pervasive misconception than trying to pass this amendment.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. I rise in support of H.R. 2745, legislation amending the Mesquite Lands Act of 1986. The original Mesquite Lands Act provided the city of Mesquite, Nevada, the exclusive right to purchase, at fair market value, certain Federal land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. As the city is landlocked by public lands and was the fastest growing city in the country for much of the 1990s, this legislation was amended in 1996 to allow the city to purchase additional Federal lands to ensure the city of Mesquite could continue to grow and prosper. In 1999, Congress passed the latest Mesquite Lands Act amendment with the specific purpose of providing land to construct a commercial airport and to provide more room for commercial and industrial development to, again, meet future demands for a rapidly growing tourism industry. In 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Mesquite Lands Act Biological Opinion, which promulgated certain terms and conditions associated with the land sale. A key term contained in the opinion is a mandate that the city participate in the development and implementation of a Habitat Conservation and Recovery Plan and a Hydrologic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan along the Virgin River. In response to this opinion, Congress made a technical amendment to the act within the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 that set aside a portion of the proceeds from the sale of each parcel for the ``development'' of the Recovery Plan and the Hydrologic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. It is apparent that during the process language allowing for the ``implementation'' of these plans was inadvertently omitted from this amendment. Other land acts, such as the Lincoln and White Pine County Lands Act, clearly state that funds shall be expended on development and implementation of multispecies habitat conservation plans. I believe the same process should be applied to the Mesquite Lands Act. H.R. 2745 is a legislative clarification regarding the special funds allowing for both the development and implementation of the Habitat Conservation and Recovery Plan and the Hydrologic Monitoring and Mitigation Plan. This is consistent with other plans in Nevada, and the same process should be applied to the city of Mesquite. In addition to the clarification for the Habitat Conservation and Recovery Plan, there's an issue regarding the timing of the land sales identified in the 1999 amendment that is also addressed in H.R. 2745. The legislation originally gave the city of Mesquite 12 years to purchase the land from the date of enactment. However, due to severe economic conditions that continue to plague southern Nevada, along with a delay of the environmental impact statement for the airport site, the city is not in a position to purchase the final sections of property at this time, and therefore was not able to make this deadline. H.R. 2745 provides for an extension of an additional 8 years to allow economic conditions to improve. In closing, I would again like to thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva, as well as the Natural Resources Committee Staff, for working with me on moving this legislation forward. H.R. 2745 will allow the city of Mesquite to continue to control the path of its future expansion and economic development, as well as correct an oversight in prior legislation.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. I come to the floor today to voice my strong support for the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. We know that every day, American companies and computer systems are targeted by foreign nation-state actors who prey on sensitive business and personal information to gain an unfair advantage in the global marketplace. The theft of research and development results, negotiating positions, or pricing information costs us jobs here at home and puts personal information at risk. The same vulnerabilities that can result in the theft of sensitive business information could be used to attack critical infrastructure we rely on such as power plants, air traffic control systems, and electrical grids. An attack on these systems would be devastating. Protecting them and the constituents they serve must be considered an urgent national security concern. The government currently uses classified cyberthreat intelligence to protect its own systems, computer networks, and critical infrastructure. The business community has voiced its desire to be given the tools necessary to protect itself from cyberthreats. This bill will allow the government to provide classified cyberthreat information to private sector companies so that they can protect sensitive information and their customers' privacy against malicious cyberattacks. The bill places no mandates or burdens on private sector companies and does not expand the size or scope of the Federal Government. All information-sharing is totally voluntary under this legislation, and there are strong privacy protections in place for the information that is shared. After receiving input from the private sector and civil liberty groups and by building upon the success of an existing intelligence- sharing pilot program with defense contractors, we have produced a bill that upholds constitutional rights to privacy while providing the private sector with the necessary means to defend itself against cyberattackers. I want to commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their outstanding leadership in crafting this legislation that was written in a transparent and bipartisan fashion. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that protects our homeland, protects our economy, and protects our privacy.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today saddened by the news of the passing of World War II veteran and Las Vegas resident Augusto Oppus over this past weekend. Mr. Oppus was part of a small community known as the ``Denied Filipino Veterans.'' Born in the Philippines on August 28, 1924, Mr. Oppus entered into military service on behalf of the United States in March of 1945 and was trained as a military policeman. He served in the 12th Military Police Company and was honorably discharged in 1946. While he enjoyed a happy, healthy life following the war, one thing Mr. Oppus did not share with his fellow World War II veterans was full recognition for his service and access to military benefits he had rightfully earned. In February 1946, President Truman signed the Rescission Act of 1946 into law. This bill denied over 200,000 Filipino World War II veterans who served before July 1, 1946, the benefits promised to them 5 years prior by President Franklin Roosevelt. The men who joined prior to July of '46 put their lives on the line for the Allied cause and helped us win the war in the Pacific, yet, due to a technicality, are not afforded the recognition they deserve. With every day that passes, it is estimated that 10 of these forgotten soldiers die having received no answer or recognition of service from our government. Men like Augusto Oppus deserve the recognition and access to benefits they've earned. My district is home to four remaining forgotten Filipino veterans. Besides Augusto, we lost Francisco Cedula last year, and I want their families to know that I am personally thankful for their service and will continue working to see them properly recognized.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service and sacrifice of Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Donald Cleo Ware, a Nevadan who dedicated his life to protecting the public from the dangers and violence associated with illegal drugs. Special Agent Ware began his career in law enforcement in 1967 with the Albuquerque Police Department in New Mexico. Soon after, he joined the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, an agency which later merged to become the Drug Enforcement Administration. Special Agent Ware served twenty-five years with the DEA, protecting the American people and bravely fighting to eliminate the scourge of dangerous drugs. On June 9, 1975, while conducting an investigation of a heroin trafficking organization in San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico, Special Agent Ware and Special Agent Wilfred Stevenson were kidnapped on their way to a meeting with the drug traffickers. Both agents were badly beaten and searched for weapons, but the gangsters failed to discover a gun Special Agent Ware had hidden in his waistband. Knowing their captors intended to kill them, Special Agents Ware and Stevenson made a desperate attempt to escape using the gun the drug traffickers had failed to find. However, both agents were shot during the escape attempt and were left for dead by their attackers. Both agents survived this harrowing ordeal, but Special Agent Ware's injuries were so serious that he remained hospitalized for the next six months. The shooting that nearly took his life never changed Special Agent Ware's trademark humility and dedication to his job. Though Special Agent Ware qualified for full medical retirement, he instead chose to continue working for the DEA until his retirement in 1995. For his service, Special Agent Ware was awarded the DEA Medal of Valor and the DEA Purple Heart Award. Don Ware died on October 12, 2004, due to complications during a surgery directly related to his injuries received in the line of duty. To honor his service and sacrifice, Special Agent Ware was memorialized on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on May 12, 2011, and the DEA Wall of Honor on May 13, 2011. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the life and service of Special Agent Don Ware, a great Nevadan, a devoted husband and father, and a dedicated officer of the law. His legacy stands as an excellent example for the entire law enforcement community, and his service and sacrifice should always be remembered.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great man, Chester A. ``Chet'' Foulke. Chet was a member of the Greatest Generation, born on July 19, 1922, and God called him home on December 31, 2011. Chet grew up in Quakertown, Pennsylvania, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The hard times forced him to leave school after the 10th grade and to work in an aircraft plant near Philadelphia before the United States became involved in World War II. He enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in September of 1943 and attended recruit training at Parris Island, South Carolina, and advanced training at Camp Pendleton, California, and Camp Tarawa, Hawaii, in preparation for one of the war's toughest battles, Iwo Jima. As a demolition expert with Company C of the 5th Engineering Battalion, Chet fought on the front lines for 36 days. ``It was an awful battle the way we got slaughtered,'' he said during a 2006 interview. ``Some days you would make it 100 or 200 yards, some days 500 yards.'' Chet was at Mount Suribachi when the first U.S. flag went up. ``I was standing there looking up when that flag went up and tears ran down my face,'' he said in another interview. ``I was just so happy to see that flag that I knew they were not going to push us off or do away with us. I felt so happy.'' When the war ended, he was sent to Japan for 7 months of occupational duty before returning to the United States where he received his discharge from the Marine Corps in May of 1946 as a corporal. He became a Nevadan when he moved to Las Vegas in 1972. In 1986, Chet helped found the Greater Nevada Detachment, No. 186, of the Marine Corps League where he served as commandant from 1992-1995 and then as chaplain for several years thereafter. He was greatly admired by members of the Marine Corps League for his bravery at Iwo Jima and his involvement in the Marine Corps League. Mr. Foulke is survived by his wife of 29 years, Martha; his daughter, Mary; her husband, Ed; three stepsons, David, William and Jeffery; and several nieces and nephews. He will be greatly missed by all. Semper Fi.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, Nevadans tell me time and time again that they want some certainty in their lives. They want their elected leaders to move beyond patchwork agreements every single month. We passed a 1-year package, fully paid for, that extends unemployment benefits while providing a pathway back to work, keeps an extra $1,000 in the pockets of Nevada's struggling families, while protecting Social Security, and maintains access to health care for seniors and veterans by keeping doctors in Medicare. Throughout the entire negotiation process, the American people were assured that they would receive an entire year of certainty. Then the Senate pulled the rug out from underneath them. Passing a 2-month extension now will put us right back here in February, when we should be using that time to debate job-creating ideas. The House will stay here and work on this critical issue until it is resolved. The House agrees with the President and the American people: we need a 1-year extension. Anything else will be judged as a failure to do our job.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1892. As the Chairman of the Technical and Tactical Subcommittee, I was tasked with leading a comprehensive review of our Nation's satellite systems. This review was conducted, and I am confident that the systems proposed in the classified annex of this bill provide the best value approach to collecting the overhead imagery demanded by our Nation's senior policy makers, intelligence analysts and war fighters. Two of the intelligence community's chief weapons against terrorism are information--and the ability to communicate that information swiftly. This reality places a significant demand on our imaging systems, and it brings into focus the cost associated with these systems. As we're fighting the war on terror, we must not allocate resources without due process. Former Secretary of Defense Gates and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen both identified America's growing debt as their number one national security concern. This bill recognizes and selectively funds competition in areas where competitive pressure will help improve innovation, reduce risk and strengthen the industrial base. This bill also recognizes and encourages competition in space launch programs with an eye towards reducing the cost of spacecraft launch while maintaining reliability. In addition to concern over the federal government's spending habits, another reason Nevadans elected me 1ast fall is to restore government accountability and oversight. The intelligence community is no exception: we must ensure they are accountable and receive proper oversight because most of their work occurs outside of the public's view. Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger are doing incredible work on this issue, and I applaud their dedication to restoring proper accountability and oversight to the intelligence community. I am confident the intelligence authorization act provides the resources and latitude our intelligence community needs while removing excess and indolence. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1892.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to pose an important question to Nevadans. How would you feel about having only 10 days' notice that an election would be held? That would give you only 10 days to research the candidates and find out where they stand on the issues, 10 days to decide who best represents you, your voice, your values. And to my distinguished colleagues in this body, how do you think your constituents would react if we changed the law so that they had only 10 days' notice that an election would be held? It would be unconscionable for Congress to abdicate its responsibility and allow a board of unelected bureaucrats to do something that this body would never do itself. That's the debate today, whether or not Congress allows the National Labor Relations Board to radically change the way union elections are governed, with little to no input from those most affected by this decision. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act to prevent the National Labor Relations Board from doing something we would not do ourselves.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, Washington seems to have forgotten that government money isn't free, and it is the American taxpayers who support its spending habit. Simply put, the Federal Government doesn't respect your hard work, your discipline, your sacrifice or your unwavering commitment to self-reliance. We must change that. The time to force accountability, leadership and respect is long past due, and the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution may be the only solution. A balanced budget amendment would force Washington politicians to exercise necessary fiscal restraint and better judgment when debating where and how to spend American taxpayer dollars. The days of borrowing money and passing the debt on to our families and small businesses would be over, and Washington would be forced to live within its means, just like you and I. The government should be doing a few things very well, instead of a lot of things poorly. It should help give people peace of mind. But its insatiable appetite for spending does exactly the opposite. Our small businesses face uncertainty created by a government that funds its misadventures with borrowed money and higher taxes. Washington's spending habit will rot our economic foundation to the core and destroy the American Dream as we know it. The government can't spend its way out of a recession, but it can help create an environment of confidence and predictability that America's job creators, work force and families are seeking. President Barack Obama has said that the Nation needs a balanced approach when addressing Washington's unsustainable spending. But one only has to ask, what's more balanced than a balanced budget amendment? Forty-nine of 50 States have balanced budget requirements, and a CNN poll shows that 74 percent of the American people support a balanced budget amendment. This is not a partisan fight. This is a commonsense solution to an undeniable problem that is plaguing our economy. Still there are those who oppose a balanced budget amendment because they believe Washington ought to be able to hold the line on spending. I wish we could trust that to happen, but over the last decade, both parties have spent taxpayer dollars at unsustainable levels. It is time to change direction and move forward with an approach that will rescue our economy with real and lasting results. With America's total debt exceeding the gross domestic product for the first time since World War II, we cannot afford to make this issue about politics. It must be about saving our economy and securing the future of our country for our children and our grandchildren. The debate in Washington comes down to this: Should we hold the government accountable or not? We must seize this opportunity to change Washington's culture of deficit spending. We must pass a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 470, the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011. This issue is very important to my home State of Nevada and the more than 29 million residents across Nevada, Arizona, and California that benefit from Hoover power. The Hoover Dam is located in my district, and Hoover power has been critical to southern Nevada's economy, businesses, and consumers since the dam first started operating in 1936. Hoover power is clean and affordable, and today we are taking an important step toward making it stable. The Hoover power contracts are due to expire in 2017, and H.R. 470 would authorize the continued allocation of electricity from the Hoover Dam for the next 50 years, until 2067. Extending Nevada's access to low-cost, clean hydropower through the enactment of H.R. 470 is key to Nevada's economic recovery because it will help create certainty over future electricity prices, and certainty is exactly what our economy needs right now in order to get people back to work. H.R. 470 was developed as a consensus, bipartisan plan to ensure the continued availability and reliability of Hoover power to the citizens of Nevada, California, and Arizona. Hoover contractors who participated in developing this plan have invested more than $1.3 billion to construct, operate, and maintain Hoover Dam in the past. They agreed to contribute 5 percent of their post-2017 Hoover power allocations to form a 100-megawatt resource pool that will be made available to customers such as tribes, irrigation districts, and rural cooperatives that did not have access to this power in the past. H.R. 470 provides that this resource pool will be allocated by a Federal-State partnership involving the Western Area Power Administration and the States of Nevada, California, and Arizona. Now, I understand that some Arizona cooperatives have expressed concerns over this bill because they are unhappy with Arizona's power allocation priority list. But this bill actually sets aside additional power for other entities, including cooperatives, thereby increasing the likelihood of a power allocation, and this Federal legislation should not be used to usurp the authority of the State of Arizona. Again, this legislation is essential to the millions of consumers who have invested in this renewable source of energy over the past 75 years because it will continue to provide them with Hoover power for the next 50 years, as well as allow new customers to benefit from this clean, low-cost energy source. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 470, the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I too want to offer my congratulations to Mark Amodei. I had the honor of serving alongside him in the State Senate, where he distinguished himself as president pro tempore and a member of the Natural Resources Committee, where he was the go-to guy on a lot of issues important to Nevada regarding water laws, grazing rights, and public lands issues. He's a fellow veteran. It's an honor to have him here. I wish him well, and I ask the entire House to welcome here as well.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, in the past, unions have been about protecting workers. As a physician, I know that one of the major reasons for the increase in life expectancy between the first and second half of the last century was due in large part to increases in worker safety, which were brought about by actions of unions. I grew up in a union household. In fact, when my father was injured on the job, it was his union that helped represent him in court and put food on the table for my family. Too often, today's unions are more about politics and protecting their clout than protecting workers. This change in focus is exemplified by a Boeing union newsletter that stated that ``2,100 bargaining unit positions may be lost,'' if Boeing located a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina. Not jobs, not employees, not brothers and sisters, but bargaining unit positions. These employees were reduced to nothing more than a number. Employers must have the ability to locate where they can find the best employees, period. I worry that if the NLRB takes away that ability and prevents them from creating jobs in a right-to-work State like South Carolina, what does that mean for other right-to-work States like my State of Nevada, the State hardest hit by the recession and with the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. Would the NLRB take similar action against a company trying to create jobs in Nevada? That's a risk Nevadans cannot afford to take. H.R. 2587 maintains an employer's ability to locate where they can find the best employees; and that is why I support this legislation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. I now would like to yield to the gentleman from the Garden State, Mr. Lance.

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentleman from the Keystone State, Mr. Meehan.

Mr. HECK. I would now like to yield to my colleague from the House Armed Services Committee, the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).