Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to announce that this week, April 14 through April 20, is National Osteopathic Medicine Week. This week celebrates the contributions of more than 100,000 osteopathic physicians and medical students in the United States to the health of our communities.

There are many doctors in the House of Representatives, but as the lone osteopathic physician in Congress, I feel it incumbent upon me to mark this week by raising awareness of the importance of osteopathic medicine.

The practice of osteopathic medicine was founded by Dr. Andrew Taylor Still in 1874, and over the past 139 years, osteopathic physicians have made significant contributions to the United States health care system. Osteopathic doctors have treated Presidents and Olympic athletes, contributed to the fight against AIDS, and continue to be involved on the front lines of our health care systems today. In fact, Dr. Martin Levine, immediate past president of the American Osteopathic Association, was part of the medical team at the Boston Marathon and was pressed into service, providing immediate care in the wake of yesterday's tragedy.

As osteopathic physicians, we take a holistic approach to medicine that focuses on the health of the whole person, and we are committed to improving the health of the communities we serve through education and awareness, as well as delivering quality health care services.

In light of the contributions made by osteopathic physicians to the health of our Nation, and this being their national week of recognition, I have introduced House Resolution 159, which calls on the House to support the designation of National Osteopathic Medicine Week.

I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the field of osteopathic medicine and supporting the designation of National Osteopathic Medicine Week.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague, Ms. Foxx, for her leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor. I was pleased to work with Ms. Foxx and Mr. McKeon in the last Congress on similar legislation, and I've enjoyed working with my colleagues on this bill.

I rise in support of the SKILLS Act because back in my district, the biggest concerns of my constituents are still jobs and the economy. Southern Nevada was hit hard by the recession due to our economy relying heavily on the travel and tourism industries and the construction industry. We lost a lot of jobs in those sectors, and, in fact, unemployment is just under 10 percent in our State today.

Madam Chair, the SKILLS Act is exactly what southern Nevada needs to foster our recovery. Our State is identifying and attracting new, in- demand industries that will come to Nevada and create jobs and economic opportunities. Now we need to train our workers to do these jobs, the jobs that do and will exist, not the jobs that did exist. The SKILLS Act will help us do that because it strengthens the role of employers in workforce development decisions by requiring that two-thirds of the workforce board members be local employers, and focuses training on in- demand occupations.

The SKILLS Act will also improve job-training programs by eliminating and streamlining 35 ineffective and duplicative programs, and creating a flexible workforce investment fund to serve as a single source of support for workers, employers, and job seekers. To think that our State and local elected leaders are not concerned with helping all of their unemployed, whether they be victims of domestic violence, veterans, those unable to complete high school, or the single mom, is a slap in the face to those local elected leaders, elected by their constituents.

Finally, the SKILLS Act increases accountability and transparency for workforce investment boards and their performance measures, ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly. The SKILLS Act will certainly improve workforce development efforts across the country, getting more Nevadans and more Americans connected with the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow, not the jobs of yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to recognize the exemplary service and outstanding achievements of LTC William Anton, a member of the Army Ranger Hall of Fame and a resident of southern Nevada.

LTC Anton was recently awarded the prestigious Knowlton Award--an honor recognizing significant contributions in the field of Army intelligence--by our nation's Military Intelligence Corps.

After serving with distinction in Vietnam, service which earned him a 2009 induction

into the Army Ranger Hall of Fame, Bill began a career in Army intelligence.

In 1979, while in command of an electronic warfare company, Bill developed a key intelligence-gathering tool that was still being used a decade later during Operation Desert Storm.

The details of the intelligence system Bill developed are still considered classified but rest assured it was an asset to our troops in battle and may have saved American lives as it gathered intelligence on our enemies.

The Knowlton Award was named after Revolutionary War hero LTC Thomas Knowlton of Connecticut who was commissioned by George Washington to raise a regiment to perform desperate and delicate intelligence services and LTC Bill Anton has exemplified this tradition with his service to our country.

I congratulate LTC Bill Anton on this well-deserved honor.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to bid a solemn and respectful farewell to Mr. Romeo Barreras and Mr. Silverio Cuaresma. Messrs. Barreras and Cuaresma were residents of southern Nevada and members of the Las Vegas Mighty Five, a group of Filipino American World War II veterans denied benefits and recognition for their service to the United States.

Romeo Barreras volunteered for the Philippine Army at age 17 and served with the infantry as a Guerrilla fighter. He earned a Purple Heart for wounds sustained in action and received an honorable discharge for his service to both the Republic of the Philippines and the United States. Romeo passed away last month at the age of 85.

Silverio Cuaresma was a guerrilla intelligence officer who served under Army Colonel Edwin Ramsey in the 26th calvary. It was this unit that made the last horse charge in cavalry history on January 16, 1942. After his discharge, Silverio took up the cause of his fellow denied veterans and fought for their compensation ever since. That fight ended two weeks ago in Las Vegas. Silverio Cuaresma was 100 years old.

They, along with their countrymen, fought and in many instances died under the command of American troops in the Pacific theater of World War II. After helping the Allies win the war in the Pacific, many of these veterans began seeking the benefits promised to them by President Franklin Roosevelt. But on February 18, 1946, President Harry S. Truman signed the Rescission Act of 1946 into law, which denied over 200,000 Filipino World War II veterans the benefits promised to them just five years earlier by President Roosevelt.

Congress finally acknowledged the dedicated service of many of these denied veterans when it established the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund in 2009. But many of these veterans, as many as 24,000, still have not received compensation due to bureaucratic hurdles and paperwork shuffles over the types of records they hold verifying their service.

The Mighty Five is now reduced to two with the passing of Romeo and Silverio. We lost Augusto Oppus last year as well. I fear 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.

Yesterday, I introduced legislation to ensure that the remainder of the Mighty Five and denied Filipino veterans everywhere finally receive the benefits promised to them so many years ago.

My bill, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. It directs the Department of the Army to certify the service of any Filipino World War II veteran whose name appears on the Approved Revised Reconstructed Guerrilla Roster or has certified documentation from the U.S. Army or Philippine Government attesting to their service.

Simply put, these men fought so that the Allies could defeat the Japanese in the Pacific. If they can show they fought, let's fulfill our promise to them so they can live out their years knowing that the United States has officially recognized their service.

I have met with the Mighty Five many times in Las Vegas. All they want is to be recognized. It's not about the money to them. They want to know that their service was appreciated, that their sacrifices did not go unnoticed.

As I attended Lieutenant Cuaresma's funeral last week, no flag draped his casket, no honor guard was present, and there was no playing of ``Taps.'' There was no official recognition of his dedicated military service. And that, Mr. Speaker, was wrong.

I would like to thank my friends and brother veterans, Romeo and Silverio, for their service to our country. Their passion and dedication to this cause will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in fighting to ensure these honorable World War II veterans are appropriately recognized.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to recognize Dr. Harry Rosenberg, founding president of Roseman University of Health Sciences.

In 1999, Dr. Rosenberg rented a small office space in Henderson, Nevada, believing he could establish a pharmacy school that would produce highly skilled graduates ready to be recruited for work across the country.

His innovative approach to education led him to develop a block format curriculum that emphasizes a student-centered active learning environment, allowing students to participate in experiential education from the very beginning of their studies and complete their doctoral degree in just 3 years instead of the traditional 4 years, making Roseman one of the most affordable pharmacy schools in the Nation.

During his tenure, Dr. Rosenberg helped transform Roseman from a local school of 38 students to a regional institution with over 1,000 and offering an array of quality programs in nursing, dentistry, and business administration.

As he prepares for retirement, I commend Dr. Rosenberg for his vision, innovation, and commitment to offering students an affordable, state-of-the-art education that has and will benefit the State of Nevada and the Nation.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 6361, the Vulnerable Veterans Housing Reform Act of 2012.

As stated, this bill would remove an unnecessary barrier that prevents our disabled wartime veterans from receiving the housing assistance they so critically need. It does this by preventing the Department of Housing and Urban Development from considering our veterans' aid and attendance benefits as income when calculating their eligibility for housing assistance.

The aid and attendance benefit is an enhanced pension program provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs to our Nation's wartime veterans who are severely disabled and have little or no income. According to the VA, veterans eligible for the aid and attendance benefit are defined as those requiring the aid of another person in order to perform his or her activities of daily living, such as bathing, feeding, dressing, using the restroom, adjusting prosthetic devices, or protecting themselves from the hazards of their daily environment.

In order to receive this benefit, our severely disabled veterans must first establish their eligibility for a low-income pension. Once eligibility is determined, those low-income disabled vets can receive an additional aid and attendance benefit annually to help defray the cost of their medical care. Now, this is an important point. The aid and attendance benefit is for medical care; it is not discretionary income.

As you can imagine, these veterans struggle daily to keep the lights on, put food on the table, and to keep a roof over their heads. Add to that the exorbitant cost of paying for live-in aid, and it becomes increasingly difficult for them to stay in their homes.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development operates a number of programs that can assist these veterans. However, the current statute requires that the aid and attendance benefit be counted as income when determining eligibility for housing assistance. Mr. Speaker, this makes no sense. The VA provides this benefit to ensure that our low-income disabled wartime veterans have the necessary resources to receive the medical care they need and have earned.

The cost of an assisted living facility can be $39,600, and the median cost of a room in a nursing home is between $73,000 and $81,000 annually. By providing the aid and attendance benefit and keeping the veteran in their home, we are doing them a service and saving taxpayer money. Continuing to count the aid and attendance benefit as income does nothing more than reduce the housing assistance available to our low-income disabled vets.

Mr. Speaker, it's the stated goal of both this House and this administration to reduce homelessness in our veteran population. Passing this legislation will help ensure that we achieve this goal.

H.R. 6361 also includes an important provision authored by my distinguished colleague from the Ninth District of Texas, Congressman Al Green. His provision would create a pilot program to provide grants to qualified

nonprofit organizations for the purpose of modifying and rehabilitating homes for our Nation's low-income disabled veterans.

H.R. 6361 was drafted in a bipartisan manner, and this is reflected in the overwhelming support it received when it was reported unanimously by the House Financial Services Committee on September 12, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6361 will go a long way in providing the services and assistance our low-income disabled vets have earned and deserve. I thank the subcommittee chair, the distinguished lady from Illinois, and all the members of the committee for their support of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this critical bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join with me in protecting the honor and valor of our military heroes by passing H.R. 1775, the Stolen Valor Act of 2011.

On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court 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.''

However, in concurring with the decision of the plurality, Justice Breyer stated that a ``more finely tailored statute that shows the false statement caused specific harm or was at least material could significantly reduce the threat of First Amendment harm while permitting the statute to achieve its important protective objective.''

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what my legislation does. 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 alleged service with the intent of profiting personally or financially. Defining the intent helps ensure that this law will pass constitutional scrutiny while at the same time achieving its primary objective, which is to preserve and protect the honor and integrity of military service and awards.

In 2006, every Member of both the House and Senate clearly understood the need for this legislation and demonstrated that by unanimously passing the prior Stolen Valor Act in each Chamber. 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 2006.

This House has the opportunity to once again show our servicemembers and veterans that we value the magnitude of their sacrifice while at the same time protecting the constitutional rights that they fought so hard to protect.

H.R. 1775 enjoys broad bipartisan support with 107 cosponsors and is supported by numerous veteran service organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Association of the U.S. Navy, the Fleet Reserve Association, the National Association for Uniformed Services, the National Guard Association of the United States, the Association of the United States Army, the Military Officers Association of America, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and AMVETS.

I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers for helping to move this important legislation that was reported unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. I would also like to thank my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin) for sponsoring this substitute amendment during committee consideration.

Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that we pass this bill on the 11th anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 in recognition of the brave servicemen and women who have fought and died in the war to bring the perpetrators of these attacks to justice. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1775.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.