Floor Statements

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. Speaker, we all have our own stories, personal stories on how 9/11 affected us, where we were, what we were doing. For my generation, I'm sure the day will go down in history as our day of infamy.

My perspective is as a first responder on that day and someone who grew up in New York. I was working for the Department of Defense at the time, leading a counterterrorism medical response organization. And my partner, Paramedic Jason Kepp, was actually conducting some training with the U.S. Park Police over at their aviation facility in Anacostia when they saw a low-flying plane and then heard the loud explosion. Jason quickly jumped on a U.S. Park Police helicopter and was one of the first responders to arrive at the Pentagon and provide aid.

I was traveling and in St. Louis when I turned on the TV that morning and saw the first tower in flames and was watching as the second tower was struck by another aircraft.

I knew that I needed to get back to my office in Bethesda as quickly as possible, a task made more difficult by the fact that aircraft had been grounded nationwide. So I remained on the phone, coordinating my teams, dispatching them to the various sites, and preparing for what might come next.

I carried that out until I made my way back to my office here and then subsequently on my way to New York City.

The tragic events showed us the darkest side of humanity: My drive up the New Jersey Turnpike, along with

my partner, Paramedic Kepp, from here to the World Trade Center site, as we drove past the Liberty State Park and looked across the river to see the gaping hole in the New York skyline where the Trade Towers once stood, now a cloud of dust still hanging in the air illuminated by the bright lights that had been set up for the rescue operation, crossing through the then desolate and closed off Holland Tunnel because all traffic in and out of New York had been stopped. And then the devastation on the scene: The twisted wreckage of what was two of America's tallest buildings, the debris field scattered widely and the coating of pulverized cement that laid on the ground like a blanket of snow.

But it also showed us the brightest side of humanity: The hundreds of people who lined up along West Street every day holding up signs and cheering on the rescuers as they made their way to and from the scene to carry out response operations. The restaurant owners in the area who were closed down for business to the public but opened up to provide hot meals to the rescuers who had previously been eating cold sandwiches and MREs. And the thousands of men and women who came to New York City to help--Red Cross volunteers, medical providers, public safety personnel, construction workers, heavy equipment operators among them.

On behalf of the nearly 3,000 victims of that day--246 on the four planes, over 2,600 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, the 125 at the Pentagon, those numbers including 55 military personnel, 343 firefighters and paramedics from the Fire Department of New York, 23 officers from the New York Police Department, 37 officers from the Port Authority Police Department, and 8 EMTs and paramedics from private sector EMS, I invoke a quote of then-President George Bush:

``Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.''

I offer my remarks today in memory of Fire Captain Patrick ``Paddy'' Brown, Ladder 3, an American hero, remembered November 9, 2001, at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York, recovered December 14, 2001, from the rubble of the North Tower.

I would now like to yield time to the gentleman from the Empire State, Mr. Grimm.

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

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

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

I now yield to my friend and member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for coming down this afternoon and sharing their feelings and experiences on that fateful day of September 11, 2001. We have heard a range of emotions, each telling their own story on how that day affected them.

I ask that we all take a moment of silence on that day, September 11, 2011, on the 10th anniversary, remembering those nearly 3,000 victims, their families and those affected.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 33 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, September 12, 2011, at noon for morning-hour debate.