Denny Heck

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a correction in the Congressional Record. Earlier today, this body took a vote series with twelve votes in a row, ten of which were amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 2810. During that vote series, we considered Amendment Number Six, offered by my friend and colleague, Mr. Nadler of New York. That amendment would have struck Section 1022 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds for transfer or release of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay. For too many of our friends and allies around the world, the Guantanamo Bay facility has become a symbol of human rights abuses, and our enemies use it to rally opposition to the United States. I have consistently voted to close Guantanamo Bay. Unfortunately, my recorded vote was opposed to this Amendment. I would like to correct the record of my vote in favor of Amendment Six and opposed to detaining individuals at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to tell you about a time when bipartisanship was alive and when Congress was, well, boring for most Americans. In fact, it wasn't that long ago. It was just in March of 2015 that Democrats and Republicans fixed the Medicare payment formula and funded the Children's Health Insurance Program. I was proud to be a Member of the body that day. Did our bipartisanship dominate the headlines? No. Did it get a lot of attention at townhalls? No, of course not. Because all of us getting along was, well, boring. But these recent Republican healthcare proposals, they are not boring. They have been developed in secrecy, they are completely partisan, and they take us backward. I challenge my friends across the aisle, the Republicans, to join us and fix the parts of the Affordable Care Act that need fixing because the Affordable Care Act has made a real difference for millions of Americans, a positive difference. So let's get back to bipartisanship, back to boring, back to basics because that is what our constituents want most of all.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Chair, I am voting ``no'' on the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act. All of us are. Just like healthcare, this legislation takes the approach that the best way to proceed is with the most extreme bill possible, a bill that attracts no Democrats and even makes moderate Republicans deeply uncomfortable. One reason, the Dodd-Frank Act set up an office at CFPB to protect servicemembers. That office, initially led by Holly Petraeus, has done great work in educating and fighting for servicemember families. I have worked with Republicans for years to support and enhance it. This bill makes that office optional. And it specifically strips the funding for its financial counseling project. That is appalling. It hurts my constituents, and, again, it makes my Republican friends deeply uncomfortable. It is one of scores of provisions that make clear this isn't a bill designed to help Americans. It is an ideological document. It hurts men and women in uniform. And oh, by the way, millions of others. It is a terrible approach. Please vote ``no'' on the ``Wrong'' CHOICE Act.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, let's make this clear. The Un-American Health Care Act doesn't just repeal advances with ObamaCare, it takes us backward to a point worse off than we were before the Affordable Care Act. It guts Medicaid, and will fail to meet existing needs, hurting vulnerable children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and seniors needing long-term care, hurting them all. It abandons Planned Parenthood services. Women with nowhere else to turn will lose access to critical services like pelvic exams and pap tests. I am here today speaking on behalf of single mom Sherry, cancer survivor Marty, star student Kelty, and little Gracie and her devoted grandmother Donna. We are all one voice saying we cannot afford to make the American healthcare system even worse than it was before ObamaCare. That is the path the un-American Health Care Act will carve. My friends, let's not go down that path. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Madam Speaker, today I would like to share a letter I received from Sherry, who lives back in my hometown of Olympia, Washington. Sherry writes to me: My husband was a veteran. He worked as a civilian with high security clearance at White Sands Missile Range and later as a paramedic and firefighter. When I met him, I was working as a paramedic, also. We were crazy in love. But I lost him to cancer in 2009, at the age of 56. Since the day my husband died, we lost his income. I had to figure out how to raise our son, who was then 6. I sold my business on the Oregon coast, lost my house in Newport, and moved to Washington to be with my sister. I found Olympia a year later and have been here since. I have qualified for food stamps for the last 8 years. We have depended on the food bank on and off. When all this happened, that was before ObamaCare, and the $1,000 monthly premium for insurance for my family was simply not sustainable. At first, I was able to keep my insurance through COBRA. But after that ran out, we were left to paying for some cut-rate insurance that provided very little coverage. When the Affordable Care Act was enacted, I finally felt relief. I got covered through the ACA, and that allowed me to direct some of the money I was paying to insurance toward food, books, clothing, or tuition. My son is now 13, and 6 foot 1, with a size 14 shoe, so we go through clothes and shoes for him like crazy. I still struggle. I still have medical bills and collections. I still struggle with food and clothes for both myself and my son. I still go to the Thurston County Food Bank in downtown Olympia. But ObamaCare allows me to follow my health closely and helps me pay for the medical care my son and I require. I have a spot on my lung that needs constant monitoring, and ObamaCare has allowed me to go in for those routine MRIs. Preventative services like mammograms are also paid for. Since my husband died, I have been focused on raising my son and getting a higher education degree. I went to massage school, and then I earned my degree at The Evergreen State College. I will graduate with a master's degree in psychology in August. Not only will I be employable and be able to help others in the mental health field, I will also get to start whittling away at paying old medical bills and my student loans. Although I will no longer need ObamaCare since I will have health insurance through my employer, the ACA has forever changed the insurance marketplace. The insurers can't charge me more for my preexisting condition like they could before. If the ACA had been in place when my husband died, I would have been able to keep my business on the Oregon coast. If the ACA had been in place when my husband died, I would have immediately qualified for insurance under the ACA, and I may have been able to keep our house. I want you to know, I am not lazy. I am a determined, self-improving mom who is raising her son alone. Before the ACA, I had to decide whether to pay for insurance or food. I depend on the ACA. That is the letter from Sherry. Madam Speaker, this past Saturday, I had the opportunity to meet with more than 300 of my constituents who support accessible, affordable health care in our country. I heard from many, but still a small portion of the 750,000 Washingtonians who gained coverage through the ACA. The ACA is working for many people across America, and Congress should not reverse the progress we have made under it. That being said, I know there are parts of the ACA that could be improved upon. We all know that. We can and should make improvements in order to make healthcare insurance more affordable and more accessible to more people across our Nation. As we began this Congress, I had hope that we could have a productive, bipartisan discussion about the steps we could take to do just that, but I was saddened and, frankly, dismayed by the lack of serious policy efforts from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Well, the majority finally released their proposed replacement for the ACA, the so-called American Health Care Act, after weeks of hiding this secret bill behind closed doors. Frankly, I am not impressed by the bill. This bill offers no attempts to improve healthcare coverage or insurance coverage, no attempts to reduce healthcare costs or the rate of inflation. This bill allows insurance to charge older people more while, at the same time, reducing the subsidies for many of those very same people. The bill was presented without any indication of how it will affect our budget or how many people will be kicked off their insurance under this plan. This bill does not address the barriers that prevent working class and middle class people from accessing and securing health insurance. In fact, the bill would likely put health insurance out of reach for millions of Americans who are in the working and middle classes. Madam Speaker, to earn the label ``American,'' a bill had better be exceptional. The American Health Care Act is a lot of things, but exceptional is not one of them. People like Sherry are exceptional. Let's put Sherry and people in her circumstances first.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, it may be Valentine's Day, but I rise today to share a story of a Christmas miracle. Now, this is little Gracie, and she was born on Christmas Day in 2015. Unfortunately, not too long after she was born, she was diagnosed with a respiratory virus. It is a very bad thing for little people because they have little lungs and little respiratory airways. Frankly, it can be extremely dangerous. To make matters worse, she was snowed in at the hospital where she was born. She had to spend 5 days at the NICU before they could transport her to a children's hospital. When she finally did arrive at Seattle Children's Hospital, she had pneumonia, E. coli, and a collapsed lung. But, fortunately, little Gracie is a fighter, as was her medical team, and she made a complete and full recovery. With coverage through Medicaid, her parents were able to focus on her care and her future. The financial stress of hospital bills that come with intensive care, a cardiac catheter, a life flight, and numerous medications was daunting, but it was not devastating. Gracie's story is just one example of the difference Medicaid expansion through the ACA has made for millions of children throughout our Nation. Mr. Speaker, when I am home, I hear these stories all day long about how the ACA has made a real difference in the lives of people. The ACA in my State expanded coverage to more than 750,000 people. In fact, this January, we hit record enrollment of 225,000 sign-ups. That is a 13 percent jump from last year. The ACA is working for many people across America; but let's be honest: we have also heard the other stories from people who aren't seeing these gains. Instead, they are seeing higher premiums and increased medical costs in general, with little improvement in coverage. Those are legitimate concerns that Congress needs to address. But whenever Congress makes major changes, such as Social Security or Medicare, or enacts big ideas, there will always be unexpected results in parts of the program that don't function as anticipated or designed. Our job is to follow up, see what works, and adapt accordingly going forward. Even the best laws are going to require some adjustment. Let's do that. Let's do it the smart way, the American way, and work together to fix the parts of the ACA that need fixing while maintaining that which works. Repeal and replace is not the answer. It is not the answer. Working together to fix it is the answer. As we continue--or begin--to work together, I hope we will remember Gracie and know that health care is not a miracle. Health care is the result of hardworking doctors, nurses, and healthcare professionals and a financially viable healthcare system and our actions here to support that in Congress. We all come here for lots of reasons: philosophy, values, and ideology. We come here to represent our districts and their major components. I have the privilege to represent Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the largest force projection base on the West Coast, and many thousands of State employees--I have the State capital--who work every day to elevate the human condition of their friends and neighbors. We come here to represent the 672,554 people of our districts. Mostly, I hope, however, that we come here to represent the Gracies of our districts. What I believe deep in my soul is that, if we will keep Gracie and the Gracies of our district in our hearts and foremost in our minds, if we keep them as our touchstone and our North Star, then America is going to be all right. I plead with you to do just that.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, Shirley is from my district, and I heard from her this past December when she told me about her daughter, Sarah. Sarah has had health problems all of her life and, unfortunately, because it has been too expensive, she has not been able to afford health insurance, but she was finally able to be covered under the Affordable Care Act because of the historic Medicaid expansion. It made a big difference in her life because just 2 years ago, she was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Now, Sarah may be just a statistic to some, and, indeed, she is 1 of 601,000 Washingtonians who have been covered under the Medicaid expansion; 20,000 of whom have been treated for cancer. But to Sarah's mother, Sarah can't just be boiled down to an ACA statistic. To Shirley, Sarah is her daughter who will lose this coverage if Congress repeals the healthcare law without a comparable replacement. It would put Sarah, in her fight against thyroid cancer, back to square one. Friends and colleagues, I plead with you, go to your districts. Talk to the Shirleys; talk to the Sarahs. Listen to them. Their stories matter because they matter.

Mr. HECK

Mr. HECK. Mr. Speaker, I have a constituent named Martha. She goes by Marty. Marty was studying to earn her bachelor's degree in nursing at Pacific Lutheran University when she was diagnosed with rectal cancer. Not good. Without medical insurance, as we all know, that is a certain death sentence. There is no other way about it. But it wasn't for Marty. Frankly, less than a year before she had finally found affordable healthcare insurance for herself through the Washington State Health Benefit Exchange. Every family, every person in this Chamber, has been affected by it. Cancer has a way of ripping bodies apart, ripping families apart, and ripping communities apart. It didn't rip Marty apart. Through her strength, courage, and health insurance, she persevered. She has conviction that God used her community of friends and her family and the Affordable Care Act to help her through treatment and into recovery. Not only could Marty share that story with me back in 2015, but she graduated cum laude from PLU in nursing just this last December. I am sharing her remarkable story with you--it could be replicated millions of times--to urge you to set aside and rise above partisan politics and not repeal the lifesaving Affordable Care Act. I ask you to do this not just for the sake of Marty, but because there, my friends, but for the grace of God, go each and every one of us.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am especially grateful to the ranking member for allowing me this opportunity. First, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from New York and the other gentleman from Texas regarding our colleague, Mr. Neugebauer. From the day that I walked into this Chamber, he has been nothing but a paragon of gentlemanliness toward myself and my colleagues. In fact, every freshman receives a flag flown over the Capitol that Congressman Neugebauer has had flown. And wouldn't you know it, small world category: 2,000 miles away, he happened to be good friends with my uncle, which I didn't even know until he arrived here. He will be missed. He is a testament to how you can see the world completely differently, yet be able to treat one another with respect. Mr. Speaker, I am a little uncomfortable because this is the second time in a week I have risen to oppose a proposal by my friend from Missouri who I think actually is trying to do the right thing and with whom I have dealt in good faith and who has dealt in good faith with us. But I do, in fact, rise to oppose this bill because in some cases it goes too far, in some cases it won't work, and in some cases, frankly, it doesn't go far enough. It goes too far in terms of stealing the money from the SEC reserve to pay for this. Its costs and those associated with its implementation should not be borne by another enforcement agency whose job it is to keep us safe. It won't work in terms of its reporting requirements: all of these expensive requirements that require the rate on the SEC, the transparency, the reporting. Anybody who knows anything about negotiations knows you can't post a public notice about what you intend to do and hope to be successful on the outcome. I happen to have been a professional on both sides of the labor management negotiations table, and I can tell you, the last thing in the world you want to do is post your playbook. That would be a little bit like the football team saying: Come here, defense; let me tell you what we are going to do. That would, in fact, be the net effect of this particular approach. The objective: to maintain the integrity in the McCarran-Ferguson Act is the right one. It is the wrong approach. In some cases it, frankly, doesn't go far enough because, the truth is, we ought to have these international discussions and negotiations for international firms; but this bill would only apply to the IAIS. There are a lot of international forums where insurance is at the table. The fact of the matter is, the State regulators ought to be at those tables as well. Look, there is a better way. I offer it to you. It is a bill I have introduced, which is H.R. 6436, that takes a principle-based approach. It merely says that the State-based insurance regulators have got to be at the table, and we have to protect that system. It is a principle- based, not a top-down, command and control heavy bureaucracy approach to achieving the same objective while at the same time ensuring that we provide adequate protection and regulation for international insurance companies, but respecting the State-based system. I don't know why we can't get the win-win here. You know, I find it ironic that my legislation, H.R. 6436, actually enjoys broad-based support among the stakeholders: the regulated and, yes, the regulators. The State-based insurance regulators believe that this is the best approach to take, and it is the one I think is a win-win for everybody. It achieves everybody's objectives. That is not what H.R. 5143 will do. H.R. 5143 goes too far in some cases, won't work in others, and doesn't go far enough in others. So I hope that you will reject it, provide us with an opportunity to continue to negotiate in good faith, and get to win-win because win-win is possible in this circumstance. I, once again, thank the ranking member very much for this opportunity.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. I urge my colleagues to support the idea by rejecting this bill which will not achieve the intended result because it can't work. But the idea can. Go back. Put in a reasonable timeframe. Drop that crazy FSB provision, and let the regulators get to work looking for the risks that devastated the economy a decade ago so we don't have to relive that. If we pass this bill, we very well may.

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have a little different take on this. I oppose this bill. In fact, I strongly oppose it, but I don't exactly oppose the idea at all. Let me explain that. The Dodd-Frank legislation was written, as we all know, during a period of financial crisis, and legislators and regulators had to act quickly. Sometimes, when you have to act quickly, you take shortcuts to get the financial system stabilized. But today, the difference is we have the luxury of time to go back and replace those shortcuts with some more deliberative decisionmaking. Now, Dodd-Frank said that every bank holding company over $50 billion gets heightened supervision. Well, frankly, back then, for stabilizing a financial crisis, that was a great way to move quickly and to get it done and to bring about the intended result. But again, for making policy over the long term, that doesn't make sense because, in fact, it is an arbitrary-size threshold. So it was a shortcut that made sense at the time, and I join with you in supporting a reevaluation of that particular threshold level. That is the idea of this bill, and I support the bill--or support the idea. But, again, I don't support this bill at all because, instead of taking the luxury of time to make good policy, frankly, it acts like we are still back in that crisis, and we are taking another shortcut. The bill says FSOC should determine which banks need heightened supervision, and that is a great idea. That is what they are there for. And then it says FSOC has to complete all of its work on all of the banks within 12 months. That is a terrible idea. That is a terrible idea. The last determination that FSOC took lasted 16 months, and they were working on one company at the time--and it took 16 months. And even then, the judge said: You took 16 months, and you acted too rashly and should have deliberated more. But this bill says only 12 months are allowed. And it is not just one company they would be looking at. It could be up to 40 companies with over $50 billion in assets. So I would say to my friend from Missouri, I think you have a good idea. I wish you would have brought a bill reflecting that idea out here. Let's remember that Bear Stearns was $400 billion; it contributed. Washington Mutual, $300 billion; it contributed. All of those banks are going to be in one pot that have 12 months to be looked at. We are, in fact, gutting Dodd-Frank; and, no, I do not agree with my friend from Texas, the chairman, that that is a good idea at all. The authors kind of recognized this, which is why they said banks get heightened supervision if FSOC says so or if the Financial Stability Board in Basel, Switzerland, says so. I don't know why we would cede sovereignty. I have been working with the gentleman from Missouri on exactly that issue as it relates to insurance companies. Why are we ceding our sovereignty to some regulatory entity in another country? So I do take a different view of this bill.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. The key change made by this amendment is to strike the phrase ``ordinarily incident to'' and insert ``in connection with.'' One is a term of art commonly used by the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC. Companies doing business with an OFAC license know what that means. In connection with is a much broader term, not clearly defined, Mr. Speaker, and if this amendment were to pass, exactly how attenuated of a connection would be impermissible? Crickets, because we don't know. I believe the chilling effect of this language would go far beyond the purported intent of this legislation. And let there be no confusion what the intent is, which is to block a single legal, fully compliant, and scandal-free business transaction that supports both our national security and American manufacturing. If this bill became law, we would be less safe. The U.S. specifically committed in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran Deal, as we refer to it, to allow the sale of commercial aircraft to Iran, as well as the provision of associated services. Associated services is specifically defined in the relevant section of the agreement to include financial services of the kind U.S. banks would be specifically blocked from providing under this bill. Well, it is hard to think of anything that would be a clearer violation of our own commitments under the JCPOA, an action that would give Iran a meaningful reason to walk away from the whole thing, making us less safe. It is a clear, black-and-white violation of the JCPOA. And what is our plan B if Congress provokes the collapse of this agreement? Crickets. We don't have one. Think of how much went into the successful negotiation of the agreement. We had to convince a lot of countries, with whom we don't often always agree, to maintain a united front for U.N. sanctions to be effective. If we choose to burn down the JCPOA, which this will do, entirely of our own volition, are my colleagues under any illusion that we could simply go back to our partners, not to mention Iran, and say with a straight face: Well, let's start over. And why wouldn't Iran just happily revel in the unraveling of the mighty international coalition which brought them to the table and go back to building up its nuclear program again? Again, crickets, because they would be likely to. So let's be clear. Yes, we continue to have numerous and serious differences with Iran. But as we counter their destabilizing behavior in other parts of the Middle East, I know I sleep better at night knowing that the Iran deal prevents them from obtaining a nuclear bomb with which to set off either a regional arms race or threaten our allies with nuclear blackmail. And frankly, if Iran is going to get new planes--and nothing in this bill will stop them, the choice is really not whether it is going to be Boeing or Airbus--I sleep better at night knowing that you have got American eyes on that plane in the form of the after-sale services for parts repair and American hands doing the maintenance to guard against the diversion from legitimate civil aviation use. It keeps us more safe if these are American-made planes. But even if we ignore all the compelling evidence that this bill will make us less safe, this bill fails spectacularly at preventing Iran from buying airplanes. In fact, I am certain it would hurt our own aerospace industry way more than it would hurt Iran. It is easy for foreign companies to get around this bill. They easily go to non-U.S. banks for financing. But American companies don't have that option to cut out U.S. banks entirely, unless you prefer that the proceeds from a sale be kept offshore, that American workers and communities never see a dime of reinvestment, and the more than 100,000 jobs this transaction could support go to other countries. This bill is also an attack on a key pillar of support for our exporters, including the aerospace exporters, namely, the Ex-Im Bank. Despite the fact that the Ex-Im Bank already has a policy against this, despite the fact that there is law against this, despite the fact that the Ex-Im has said they won't do this, and despite the fact that the seller, Boeing, has said in writing they won't do this. This isn't belts and suspenders. This is stapling your pants to your flesh. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill that undermines foundational elements of our national and economic security, and, in so doing, I too am reminded of what President Reagan once said: ``It's not what you don't know that bothers me, it's what you think you know that ain't so.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, initially, I would like to invoke an expression from Indian Country in the Northwest. I raise my hands in respect first to the chair of the standing committee, Mr. Shuster, who has my deepest condolences, and to my friends, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Walden, and my roommate, Mr. Kilmer. The story of the Ancient One, or Kennewick Man, as he is known, is very familiar to those of us who live in the Northwest. As the gentleman from Washington indicated, two college students stumbled upon a skull of the Ancient One on the waters of the Columbia River 20 years ago. That accident unearthed one of the most important archeological discoveries in North American history. Think about it: a skeleton virtually fully intact that is 9,000 years old. Since that time, as has been indicated, the five tribes of the region have struggled for two decades for their right to properly honor, as is their cultural way, and rebury their ancestor. But there is another story here that I think is important to tell. For generations, American archeologists and collectors raced across the West to collect native artifacts that they shipped back to museums or, more sadly, sold for a profit. Those museums were filled for years with Indian remains from graves, burial platforms, and battlefields that were desecrated, desecrated simply because the nonnative people did not understand the heritage and culture of native people. This era of looting and desecration is, in fact, a stain on our Nation's history. Thankfully, that wasn't the case with the remains of the Ancient One. This is, in part, because in 1990, in its wisdom, this institution passed a law to protect Indian remains and cultural items from desecration. In the last 26 years since its enactment, that law has allowed the Federal Government to return thousands of remains and artifacts to native tribes, and that is exactly what this amendment will do. It would enforce our existing laws and return the Ancient One to the five tribes in the Columbia River Basin, which they have fought for for two decades. They fought against a group of scientists that seek to study these remains in order to learn more about how humans first populated North America. I don't mean to impugn the motives of these scientists. We all want to support greater scientific discovery; but, frankly, these efforts to prevent the reburial of the Ancient One ignore these tribes' sovereign rights, traditions, and, in fact, their most sacred beliefs. Throughout American history, the Federal Government and the American people have not always--if we are honest with one another--upheld our vital responsibility to respect the treaty rights of the peoples who have been here since time immemorial. It is something we continue to struggle with--I get that--but we can't let it happen here again. As my friend from Washington said, the science is settled. The Ancient One is in fact an ancestor of the native peoples of the Columbia River Basin, and he belongs with them. We need to do everything in our power to ensure he is returned as quickly as possibly. That is why I was honored to introduce the Bring the Ancient One Home Act, along with my colleagues here. That is why I am so proud to work closely with Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Kilmer on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it has been 20 years, and that is 20 years too long. It is vital that we act now to properly honor the Ancient One. For that reason, I urge adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill because, well, it is a distraction. It is a distraction not just from the work we should be doing--I mean, I would ask more than rhetorically exactly how many babies have to be born with microcephaly before we actually get serious about dealing with that proposed issue and the menace that it threatens America with. Frankly, this bill is meant to be a distraction from the fact that when it actually mattered, the Financial Services Committee was absent from the debate over the Iran deal--MIA. In May 2015, we passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act to provide a framework to consider the Iran deal, which we all know now is known as JCPOA. Frankly, as one Member--I know a lot of others spent a lot of time thinking about that issue and that vote, and I, frankly, would suggest that Members on both sides of the aisle gave this a considerable amount of consideration, but we didn't learn anything about it from the Financial Services Committee--zero, zip, nada. One would think that if the committee were so concerned about JCPOA, they would have explored these issues in detail while the deal was still under consideration, just as many other committees did. In fact, I counted more than 30 Iran-related hearings in the House of Representatives between June 2014 and June 2016, including 9 in the 2- month review period mandated in the REVIEW Act. In that full 2 years, Financial Services had no Iran hearings in full committee or subcommittee--zip, zero, nada. All we got was one solitary hearing and a working group before the deal went into effect. It is not just hearings where Financial Services was MIA. Since I have arrived in Congress, we have passed at least four bills dealing with financial sanctions or terrorism finance where the chair agreed in writing to waive jurisdiction with an exchange of letters. On two additional bills, the leadership brought to the floor without the chairman's seeking to protect the committee's jurisdiction over this critical issue. So I would just ask, Mr. Chairman, if this issue were so important-- and it is--where was the Financial Services Committee while the JCPOA was being debated? It was MIA. It was absent. Then, after sitting silent while the pivotal deal was being developed, considered, and debated, the committee has finally sprung to life to attempt to sabotage a deal that didn't fall apart, frankly, as a lot of the proponents of this deal would have liked. The IAEA has stated clearly, for months, that Iran is compliant with its nuclear-related obligations under JCPOA, but we are only now bringing to the floor legislation that undermines our own commitments to the JCPOA. Sadly, it is clear that the bill we have on the floor today is about politics. It is a distraction, and we should reject it.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize this week, September 19-23, as Growth Awareness Week in order to realize the reality of growth disorders and their impact on our children's health. Monitoring growth is a major sign of a child's overall health and physical development. When a child's growth is delayed, it is an early indicator of potential underlying medical disorders. According to the Pictures of Standard Syndromes and Undiagnosed Malformations (POSSUM) database, more than 600 serious diseases and health conditions cause growth failure. These diseases range from nutritional disturbances and hormone imbalances to serious conditions such as unidentified kidney problems and even brain tumors that can all exhibit early signs by changing how much that child grows. Too many children with serious growth disorders are not receiving the medical attention they need because their condition is not caught at an early age. In fact, 48 percent of children in the U.S. who were evaluated with the two most common causes of growth failure went undiagnosed. The longer a child with growth failure goes undiagnosed, the greater the potential for damage and higher costs of care. Early detection and diagnosis are crucial in ensuring a healthy future for a child with growth failure. Therefore, raising public awareness of, and educating the public about growth failure is a vital public service. Growth Awareness Week is a key tool in educating families on their children's health, and I would like to thank the tremendous efforts of the MAGIC Foundation for their incredible work in furthering public awareness and understanding of growth failure. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the lives and health of children.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call the attention of my House colleagues to one of the most unusual careers in our national pastime of baseball, one that began and ended with just one trip to the plate at Sportsman's Park in St. Louis on August 19, 1951. In the bottom of the first inning, during the second game of a Sunday afternoon doubleheader against the Detroit Tigers, the St. Louis Browns sent a pinch hitter to the plate, 3'7'' Eddie Gaedel, whose 65 pound weight made him the shortest and lightest player in Major League Baseball history. Wearing the uniform of the Browns nine year old batboy, Eddie drew a walk on four straight pitches from Detroit pitcher Bob Cain, and was replaced by a pinch runner. His one day professional baseball career came to an abrupt halt several days later when American League president Will Harridge voided Gaedel's contract. Nevertheless, his place in baseball history was preserved in the record books as one of the only players to have a perfect 1.000 on base percentage for his entire career. Eddie Gaedel's autograph is now worth more than Babe Ruth's, and the bat he used in the game recently sold at auction for over fifty thousand dollars. St. Louis Browns owner Bill Veeck promised Eddie Gaedel immortality when he signed him to a contract to play for the Browns. In Spokane, WA, an organization works annually to help Eddie achieve the immortality he was promised. Founded in 2011 at O'Doherty Irish Grille and Pub, the Eddie Gaedel Society, Spokane Chapter No. 1 has launched a national campaign to make each August 19th ``Eddie Gaedel Fan Appreciation Day'' in ballparks everywhere. The club is also seeking Eddie Gaedel's induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, where his jersey bearing the number 1/8 was displayed for many years before being returned to St. Louis, where it now hangs in the St. Louis Cardinals Hall of Fame and Museum. I am a proud honorary member of that organization. Several years ago, Spokane Mayor David Condon declared August 19, ``Eddie Gaedel Day'' and St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay did so this year, the sixty-fifth anniversary of Eddie Gaedel's one day, four pitch baseball career. In addition, the St. Louis Cardinals have made their home game on Friday, September 9, ``Eddie Gaedel Bobblehead Night,'' and will give away thirty thousand of the miniature statues of baseball's smallest player to fans who attend their home game against the Milwaukee Brewers. Of particular note is the fact that the St. Louis Browns batboy who literally gave Eddie Gaedel the shirt off his back in August of 1951 so he could go to bat, Bill DeWitt, Jr., is now principal owner of the St. Louis Cardinals. His son, Bill DeWitt III, is the team president. The DeWitt family's involvement in professional baseball in both St. Louis and other cities stretches back over one hundred years. Bill DeWitt, Sr. sold the St. Louis Browns to Bill Veeck only weeks before Eddie came up to bat, and was serving as the team's general manager at the time. Several days after his one day career ended, Eddie Gaedel told a sportswriter ``Any young fellow dreams of being a big leaguer--and that's what I consider myself. I've got a Browns uniform with No. 1/8 on the back, a glove, and a contract. I've spent all my life in Chicago and never played ball, but I've always wanted to. I made up for it by becoming a red hot fan. I've followed the game for years.'' Mr. Speaker, Eddie Gaedel was the one and only red hot fan who ever appeared in a Major League Baseball game, drawing a walk to first base and into the record books. On this sixty-fifth anniversary of his historic achievement, I join with his many fans in Spokane, St. Louis, and around the baseball world in a tip of the cap to the immortal Eddie Gaedel. Take a walk, Eddie.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Zika virus--there is no vaccine, and there is no treatment. It kills the weak and the frail. The fancy term is it is also teratogenic. It disrupts regular embryonic development--teratogenic. It has infected 1,000 Americans--200 pregnant women. It is spread by mosquitos that are just emerging from their winter dormancy. What are we doing about it? We are going home for 7 weeks. As this body has descended further and further into dysfunction, I have heard a lot of rationalizations: ``Congress just waits until the last minute''; ``they have to see real consequences before they take action''; ``let the body work through regular order.'' I reject them all. For the second time in 3 years, this body has had and faced a devastating, urgent public health crisis. What has been our response? Missing in action. We acted too late with Ebola, and now, with Zika, we are not acting at all. Democracy can't work if we don't work. I don't yield back, Mr. Speaker. I don't yield now. I don't yield in September. I don't yield in November, and I don't yield in December until we do our work. Come back. Fight this disease.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chair, I do, indeed, rise to engage the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee in a colloquy. Mr. Chair, I express my profound gratitude to the committee for the inclusion of report language on the bill, an inclusion which notes the contributions made to our Nation's defense against digital threats by National Guard Cyber Protection Teams. The report language also expressed support for partnerships with Federal agencies, universities, and the private sector to achieve more effective training for missions like protecting the industrial control systems of critical infrastructure. Mr. Chair, the report language refers specifically to Army National Guard Cyber Protection Teams, but as the chairman is likely aware, the Air National Guard is also leading efforts in this area. For example, the 194th Wing of the Air National Guard, which is based in the 10th Congressional District of Washington State, at Camp Murray, has several Cyber Protection Teams with demonstrated expertise in industrial control system assessment, cybersecurity remediation, and cyber mission planning. I ask the chairman whether the language in the report that expresses support for collaborative training efforts for Army National Guard Cyber Protection Teams would also apply to the Air National Guard.

Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the chairman for agreeing to work with me on this critically important issue as well as for his and the ranking member's leadership on this legislation.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I actually plan on withdrawing my amendment, but would like to make my colleagues aware of some amazing work being done in my district on behalf of veterans and wounded warriors. Mr. Chairman, millions--millions--of people watched the U.S. Open at Chambers Bay in Washington's 10th Congressional District last June. It showcased, frankly, the irreplaceable beauty of golf in the Pacific Northwest. But just a 10-minute drive from Chambers Bay, you will also find yourself at beautiful American Lake. At American Lake, that is where veterans recover and heal from injuries at the VA facility, which is located near Joint Base Lewis- McChord. A big part of that recuperation includes a bit of TLC from another golf course in addition to Chambers Bay. Since 1955, 61 years, nine holes of golf at the American Lake Veterans Golf Course is where South Sound veterans could escape the stresses of their daily lives and engage in some healthy competition. And let's be honest, it is hard to look forward to a visit to the doctor, but looking forward to a round of golf with your buddies is something entirely different. It has become a great way for older vets to connect with younger vets for more recent conflicts. Currently, American Lake Veterans Golf Course--it is important that you hear this--is the Nation's only golf course designed specifically for the rehabilitation of wounded and disabled veterans. Almost all of the dedicated volunteers there are veterans as well. Well, except one, and his name is Jack Nicklaus--yes, that Jack Nicklaus--the ``Golden Bear,'' widely regarded, perhaps, as the greatest golfer of our time, who now spends his time actually designing golf courses. He is the one who helped design and expand the American Lake Veterans Golf Course to include a back nine. They went from nine holes to 18. The back nine is now in place, and the course is waiting for VA Secretary McDonald to sign the necessary paperwork to formally accept the course improvements. The course exists because of the determination of hardworking volunteers--really angels among us. And now it is time to honor one of those committed volunteers for his commitment to our veterans and wounded warriors, and officially designate holes 10 through 18 as the Nicklaus Nine. With the Nicklaus Nine, we will now have an 18-hole, 100 percent ADA accessible golf course to accommodate returning troops and our local combat veterans. With the Nicklaus Nine, we will have double the accessibility and green to offer our veterans who have given so much to all of us. Now, I am going to tell you a story, and I guarantee it is going to stay with you, I guarantee that you are going to remember this story. There is a program at American Lake Veterans Golf Course that teaches blind veterans how to play golf. One year, we had a local golfer--his name happens to be Ray Reed--who was sent to the National Blind Golf Tournament in Iowa. Ray Reed, blind, wounded warrior. And do you know what he did at that national golf tournament? He scored a hole in one. Yes, blind veterans can golf, and they learn how to do that at American Lake. It is incredible. They are an inspiration to all of us. Mr. Chairman, to avoid a point of order on my amendment, I would like to withdraw it at this time. But I hope that I can work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find another vehicle, or a standalone bill, to get this done. I strongly believe it to be appropriate to honor and bestow on he who has changed the name of golf, the Golden Bear, this honor for changing the lives of wounded warriors. I hope this will encourage the design and development of more golf courses around the U.S. devoted to our veterans and our wounded warriors. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me. Please listen with me to the following timeless, universal, and wise words: ``Trust that justice will be done in our courts without prejudice or partisanship is what, in a large part, distinguishes this country from others. For a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the Constitution and to the statutes passed by the Congress. He or she must put aside personal views or preferences and follow the law, not make it.'' Timeless and universally wise words. And, yes, those are the words of Chief Judge Merrick Garland. President Obama fulfilled his constitutional responsibility by nominating Chief Judge Garland, an eminently qualified American, to the Supreme Court. He does, indeed, deserve--and the American people deserve--a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote. Chief Judge Merrick Garland has more Federal judiciary experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in history. Let me repeat that. He has more Federal judicial experience than any other Supreme Court judge in history. This approach has earned him bipartisan praise throughout his career. As he was, as noted earlier, confirmed by a majority of both political parties, Senator Hatch's words were referenced. Here is what hasn't been referenced. None other than Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts said: ``Anytime Judge Garland disagrees, you know you're in a difficult area.'' I am proud to be from and in this body representing a region of Washington State. Of course, I am not over in the Senate. We here on the House floor don't get a vote. The nomination doesn't come here. But I am also proud that I am represented by both Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, who are both committed to moving forward and prepared to do their job and vote. Washingtonians, frankly, should be proud of their leadership. If only the Senate majority would also do their job and allow the Senate to function, then we can ensure that the Court is able to reach decisions that will produce the necessary precedent we need to resolve many matters going forward. Someday I hope someone from the 10th Congressional District of Washington State is nominated to the highest court in our land. And I fear a kid from Tacoma known for resolving disputes on the playground or a teenager in Olympia showing a talent for judging policy debates or a law student from Shelton with their nose in administrative law textbooks, I fear they are seeing all of this play out and thinking, why would I want to devote my career and life to the judicial process only to be denied consideration from a stubborn Senate? But worst of all, with this inaction, the Senate is basically erasing the lines, and they are creating a new level of gridlock. As an American, I, frankly, genuinely fear what this will become. Every American should fear what this will mean in the future. This kind of obstructionism can become and will become a slippery slope, and it will not bode well for our democracy. This is arbitrary and capricious. Justice Scalia died February 12, so there was not enough time left because there was just a year left to go. Same is true in January. What about December and November? That is holiday season. Hardly enough time. What about October? Well, we are going into holiday season. What about September? Well, we have got to get the budget out. What about August? We are on recess. We are erasing the lines, and that is for the Supreme Court. Where does it go next? Does it go to all other judicial level appointments? Does it go to all administrative agencies? We are erasing the lines. It will not bode well for the rule of law. It will not bode well for justice. I am not in the business of giving advice to the eminent Members of the upper Chamber ever except today. Do your job. Hold a hearing. Give it an up-or-down vote. Were I there, yes, I would vote to confirm Chief Judge Garland. But, minimally, do your job. Hold a hearing and give it an up-or-down vote.

Mr. HECK of Washington

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up quickly. I thank the ranking member for the time. But, for now, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, FSOC is too important. The risk of financial crisis is too great. Have we not learned that lesson, what happens? To subject the only crisis prevention regulator to the dangers of a chaotic appropriations process--and that is what we have, it cannot be denied--is the last thing we can do.