Floor Statements

As one who has also chosen to step aside at the end of this term, I want to recognize and thank two legislative giants, Henry Waxman and George Miller. They came at the same time. Although they are very different people, each shows compassion, courage, determination, persistence, powerful mind skill, and even good humor in accomplishing all these things that we have heard about tonight.

I have seen their personal qualities up close. I have been with Henry as he stands for fairness and justice in Israel. I have been with George Miller as he inspects the vanishing glaciers that are the victims of our climate change.

They have worked, as you heard, on elementary and secondary education, worker protection, health care, communication, clean air, clean water, sustaining lands and climates. They will not tolerate those who violate workers' rights, family welfare, and individual opportunity, in America or elsewhere.

We have heard about Central America. I was with George Miller in Chile this year when he received the highest medal that country gives, the O'Higgins Medal, for activities that he did as a freshman from this House when he went to Chile and courageously stood up in the face of Pinochet's terrorism to defend labor and individual rights.

We could go on far beyond the hour that is allotted here. Simply put, their record puts to rest any claim that government doesn't work, that government can't help people, that special interests always prevail. It makes us proud to be Members of this body. It makes us proud to be in the United States of America.

Thank you, George and Henry.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Pascrell from New Jersey, for underscoring the importance of what we do here in this House. Those are not just numbers on a page that he was quoting; those are people's lives and livelihoods, and we have work to do.

As I prepare to wind up my service here after 16 years, I seek the indulgence of my friend here and our colleagues to make a few observations for the benefit of my constituents to whom I owe much.

When people call my office, we answer the phone, ``Representative Rush Holt.'' Mr. Speaker, here in the House, for each of us, Representative is our title and our job description. It is an honor and a privilege for each of us to represent about three-quarters of a million people, to represent them here in the people's House, this House, that is the focal point of the U.S. Government laid out in article I, section 1, of the Constitution, right at the beginning.

Despite all the well-publicized frustrations of this place, this House is the greatest instrument for justice and human welfare in the world. We are a central part of the most successful experiment in human advancement in history. We must not forget that.

Speaking of not forgetting, we would all do well to develop a stronger sense of history, a sense among ourselves and our country. It is with a sense of history that we realize what progress we have made as a country.

In this time of frustration and cynicism, we should take note: the success of America economically, culturally, and socially has not been an accident, and it was not destined. Our success derives from our chosen system of governing ourselves. Without a sense of history, one cannot recognize progress, and humans need a sense of progress.

When I was first elected to Congress 16 years ago, some people asked me: ``Why would a scientist leave a good research institution to get into the muck of politics?'' The simple answer was that it was too important not to.

Sure, it was satisfying to win an election in a district where many said it couldn't be done, where no one of my party had been elected in almost anyone's memory, but it was clear to me that this was not a game of politics; it was a fight to defend the soul of America.

I came here an optimist about our country, our people, and their government, and I leave an optimist. I have had the help of many people, volunteers, staff and colleagues, smart, inspiring, tireless. I think of many.

I will mention several by name: my wife, Margaret Lancefield; my chief and deputy chief, Chris Gaston and Sarah Steward; and looking back, I think of those who have died during my time here.

As I speak here in glowing terms about our government, successes of this ingenious system of balancing competing interests, I would be obtuse not to recognize that many are discouraged about their government. Some politicians even foster distrust in government, taking people beyond the traditional healthy American skepticism to real destructive cynicism.

In every era, there have been naysayers: ``The government is broken, special interests rule, and all politicians are corrupt.'' I know that is not true.

I am reminded daily that through diligent and committed service to the people that a Representative can ensure that each person knows that she or he has a part in our democracy, a direct connection to his or her government, and that cooperative action, yes, government, benefits them.

We must continually show our constituents that we are committed to always improving the mechanisms of good democratic government: voting, legislation, and addressing grievances.

After eight terms, I look back with satisfaction at some things accomplished: preserving land and bits of history; improving educational opportunities; supporting education in science and foreign languages; expanding access to excellent health care, especially mental health care for our military veterans; protecting families' economic security in their nonwage-earning years; protecting postal workers when they are exposed to anthrax; enhancing the reliability, accessibility, and auditability of voting; strengthening civil protections of Muslim Americans and other minority groups; strengthening fairness in the workplace for LGBT workers; and increasing support for scientific research.

Through it all, our primary job, I would say, has been to beat back the cynicism about our ability as Americans to govern ourselves. Of course, we understand that passing laws and appropriating money is only part of a Representative's work.

I have taken opportunities to speak out about injustice, to extol people and programs that work well, to voice support for people who need a kind word and more, a little help. I present a vision for a government--not a government that vanishes, but a government that works for its citizens.

Of course, not all problems can be fixed by government, but it can be reassuring and uplifting to people to know that other people have their backs and can help; yes, that is government.

I continue to speak against intrusive surveillance by government that treats people as suspects first and citizens second. I have joined with others here to preserve our national legacies, our land and resources, a clean environment and to preserve memories of where we come from, and with my science background, I always try to present arguments based on evidence and open review.

On many issues and in many votes, I have found myself outvoted and in a minority, but it helps to recall the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who has spoken about the satisfaction in crafting a strong dissenting opinion with the hope or expectation that it will become the prevailing majority opinion.

I am reminded of many shortcomings and work unfinished. Others may succeed in reviving the Office of Technology Assessment to provide Congress with badly needed assistance. Others remaining in Congress may move our country appreciably toward more sustainable practices. My colleagues here may yet reform the intelligence community. And acting with the recognition that peace is the best security, others may work to move our Nation away from militaristic responses to so many problems.

Again, this work over 16 years has been an honor and a great satisfaction. I thank my family and my staff. Especially, I thank the people of central New Jersey for this opportunity to serve.

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

Mr. Speaker, others on the floor are recounting Representative John Dingell, Jr.'s historic legislative record, his breathtaking parliamentary skills, and his powerful advocacy. I won't repeat all of that here.

But I would like to say something about my good friend, John Dingell, Jr., and recount an event that shows a great man in the making. On December 8, 1941, soon after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered his speech saying that December 7th is a day that will live in infamy, the House briefly recessed and then reconvened to debate and declare war on Japan.

As I understand it, it was the job of a 15 year-old page, John Dingell, Jr., to go up to the press gallery to tell Fulton Lewis of the Mutual Broadcasting System to turn off the microphones now that the House was going back into session because back then there was no audio recording of Congressional activities.

Instead John told the famous newscaster to leave the microphone on and the tape running. The world now has the recording of that House debate and declaration of war. Here we see John Dingell, Jr. already with a sense of history and an understanding of the importance of Congressional action.

John, who knew that my father was serving in Congress at the same time as his father, befriended me early when I arrived in this Chamber, has shown me the warmest friendship and wisest counsel. For that I am most grateful and full of admiration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a great American citizen and a dear friend. William Scheide, of Princeton, New Jersey, passed away on November 14, 2014, at the age of 100. Bill was a humanitarian, a philanthropist and a supporter of civil rights who, although born into great wealth, was anything but indolent.

Bill was born in Philadelphia on January 6, 1914, the only child of two musicians: John, a pianist, and Harriet, a singer. He developed a love for music early on, and that passion inspired him throughout his hundred years. Bill's family earned their fortune in oil when northwestern Pennsylvania was the center of the oil industry. His grandparents and parents began collecting books, and Bill developed that collection carefully, studiously, and energetically, and built it into one of the greatest collections of rare books and manuscripts in private hands anywhere in the world. Bill attended Princeton University, graduating with the class of 1936, and eventually gave his collection to his university. His collection is huge and hugely impressive, and includes an early fourteenth century manuscript of the Magna Carta; the first four Bibles printed; an original copy of the Declaration of Independence; the first four folios of Shakespeare; and musical manuscripts of Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Wagner, and Bill's beloved Johann Sebastian Bach. Today, the Scheide Library at Princeton continues to be a resource for Princeton students and faculty and for scholars around the world.

In Princeton and throughout the country, Bill Scheide is synonymous with support for the arts--particularly music. He was a renowned pianist, organist, and oboist. After graduating from Princeton, Bill went on to earn a master's degree in music from Columbia and thereafter became one of the world's most renowned Bach scholars. He was the founding director of the Bach Aria Group, which performed and recorded over a period of more than three decades. He eventually returned to Princeton where he held regular concerts in his home, inviting guest musicians or even performing himself.

Bill's impact on Princeton University stretches far beyond his library collection. Over the years, Bill's generosity has allowed hundreds of students to attend the university through the Scheide Scholars Program. His philanthropy also extended beyond the university's gates and into the Princeton community. Through Scheide Concerts, Bill brought to the community classical music performances by some of the world's most sought-after performers. He was an avid supporter of charitable organizations in the area, including Centurion Ministries, which works to free wrongly convicted individuals from prison, and Isles, a community development organization serving our capital city of Trenton. And far beyond central New Jersey, Bill's philanthropy changed the history of our nation. When a young lawyer named Thurgood Marshall asked him to support a case called Brown vs. Board of Education, Bill Scheide provided funding that allowed the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to pursue the case to its stupendous conclusion. He later served on the board of the Legal Defense Fund for nearly four decades. Here in Washington, at the Newseum, exhibits funded by Bill Scheide teach the public about freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. He also served as a trustee of, and generous benefactor to, Westminster Choir College and Princeton Theological Seminary, both of which have buildings bearing his name.

I had the pleasure of spending a great deal of time with Bill over the years. And while Bill will certainly be remembered for his generous charitable endeavors, I believe he will be remembered most by those who knew him for his intellect, his humility, and his generosity of spirit. He was thoughtful about his philanthropy and worked hard at it, and expected nothing in return. His happiness was found in watching the eyes of concertgoers or library visitors light up with joy, or seeing a new young leader emerge from Nassau Hall at Princeton commencement who was only able to attend the university because of the Scheide Scholars Program. He was so humble, in fact, that he asked the university to change the name of the Scheide Music Library to the Mendel Music Library, to honor another Princeton faculty member and renowned Bach scholar, Arthur Mendel, who he thought deserved the recognition.

Bill is survived by his loving wife, Judy; his daughters, Louise and Barbara; his son, John; three stepchildren; and many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Bill Scheide's legacy of generosity and studious philanthropy will not soon be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of my colleague, Dr. Howard Silver, on the occasion of his recent retirement as the Executive Director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA).

COSSA is the largest consortium dedicated to promoting the social and behavioral sciences and the federal agencies that directly and indirectly supports them. COSSA is comprised of over 100 professional associations, scientific societies, research institutes, and universities, including two in my district--Princeton University and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Since its inception in the early 1980s, Howard has been with COSSA. A former political science professor, campaign manager, and legislative analyst at the Department of Education, Howard came to COSSA during its darkest, earliest chapter when the Reagan Administration was attempting to undermine federal support for the social and behavioral sciences. From 1983-88, Howard served COSSA as its Associate Director for Government Relations, establishing effective and innovative strategies that successfully defended the social and behavioral sciences (SBS) against these efforts and promoted understanding of SBS's important contributions to the nation's scientific enterprise. Howard also worked to expand federal support of SBS, advocating for the creation of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences at the National Science Foundation. During challenging and prosperous times, Howard has never lost sight of his primary objectives--to protect and promote the social and behavioral sciences in the context of all scientific disciplines.

In recognition of his leadership, Howard has served on numerous advisory boards and committees and received many honors. For example, from 1994-2000, Howard served as the elected Chair of the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF), an elite scientific advocacy group with membership from scientific and engineering societies, higher education associations, and industrial groups. In 1998, he was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2006 he became the President of the National Capital Area Political Science Association, after serving on its council. From 1998-2000 he served on the Council of the American Political Science Association (APSA). His prior service includes serving as President, Treasurer and Program Chair of the Section on Applied Political Science of the American Political Science Association, the Executive Committee of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, and on the steering committees of the National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools and the Coalition for the Advancement of Foreign Languages and International Studies. He also was a member of the 2010 Decennial Census Advisory Committee.

In a town known for its transience, for over 30 years, Howard has been an enduring leader in Washington, DC, providing members of Congress, congressional staff, federal employees, and advocates alike with accurate, incisive, timely, and useful information and guidance. His annual budget issue of the COSSA Washington Update is mandatory reading for anyone who needs to understand federal funding of social and behavioral scientific research. It is hard to imagine COSSA without Howard at the helm, leading the charge--especially when, once again, critics of the social and behavioral sciences have resurfaced to wage battles Howard has fought successfully over the years. Nonetheless, Howard has earned the right to retire and to reflect upon a long distinguished career characterized by many triumphs. I join his friends and colleagues in wishing Howard and his wife, Marilyn, well and thanking him for his years of dedicated, impressive service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the National Academy of Engineering.

The NAE was founded in 1964 and immediately made its mark. It was soon advising NASA how to organize the design and operation of the Space Shuttle, where the NAE provided guidelines for technology and operations that help launch the craft into space.

The NAE's record of accomplishments continued in the 1970s. In a study commissioned by the Port Authority of New York, the NAE came up with some of the first solutions for airport noise, which continue to benefit all of us even to this day.

In 1973, the NAE helped warn us of the effects of ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

In 1974, the Academy provided us with some of the first important scholarship on the adverse health effects of air pollution, and the costs and benefits of controlling auto emissions.

In the years and decades that followed, the National Academy of Engineering continued to pioneer new solutions to some of our nation's most pressing problems. Nothing highlights this better than the instrumental role NAE played in drafting the landmark report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. This 2007 report described a nation at risk of falling behind our competitors: not educating our children in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; not inventing at the same pace as other nations; and not producing new jobs in high- technology fields. The report was a call to action, and while its vision still needs to be fulfilled, it captured the attention of scientists, economists, think tank experts, government officials, and lawmakers. Led by Norm Augustine, the Chair of the NAE Council, the message of that report remains a compelling call for Congress to recognize how science and engineering can move us toward economic security.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in celebrating the National Academy of Engineering, its accomplishments, and to congratulate them on 50 years of service to the nation.

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes on Thursday, November 20, 2014. On Roll Call Vote 529, the Waxman of California Part C Amendment Number 1, I would have voted ``aye.'' On Roll Call Vote 530, on the Motion to Recommit with Instructions to H.R. 4795, I would have voted ``aye.'' On Roll Call Vote 531, On Passage of H.R. 4795, the Promoting New Manufacturing Act, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady, my good friend from Texas, and I rise in opposition to this legislation.

The bill concerns me, not only about the interference with protection of public health, but also the harm it would do to science and the science process. In sum, H.R. 4012 would prohibit the EPA from using any scientific studies that are not publicly available and cannot be independently reproduced.

Now, while this sounds virtuous and laudable, it is, at best, a blatant misunderstanding of how scientists operate, of the peer review process, and a violation of health privacy laws and an affront to science.

Now, I see the other side saying, oh, no, it is not a violation of health privacy laws because anything that violates the health privacy laws won't be used. Well, that is the point.

Mr. Chairman, I will enter into the Record a letter from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, dated November 4, which says, ``the proposed legislation is so broad that it could be used to prevent the implementation of nearly any regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency.''

These are not partisans who are talking about this. These are people who want the science used so that we have good regulations. They are not trying to interfere with EPA's work.

Consider epidemiology. This is the science that investigates the patterns in disease and health, like trying to understand the spread of diseases like Ebola, or in understanding why smoking causes cancer. Now, not surprisingly, collecting these epidemiological data requires getting information that is legally prohibited from disclosure under the health privacy legislation, data about illness and treatment and family history and so forth.

So when H.R. 4012 says EPA must use studies where the information is public, it is saying EPA may not use many, perhaps most, epidemiological studies because the researchers are prohibited legally from making their data publicly available. There is no question that H.R. 4012 strips EPA of

the ability to use the best available science.

Were it to become law, studies that might be used on regulations to keep drinking water safe or to prevent exposure to dangerous pesticides or other chemicals would be null and void.

Let's be honest. The not-so-hidden motivations behind this are to restrict the availability of academic independent science and to strengthen the hand of biased industry input. It is entitled the ``Secret Science Act,'' which is a direct aspersion on science and the peer review process. It suggests that scientists are conspirators in lab coats trying to pull one over and bring in unnecessary regulations.

Everyone wants transparency, reproducibility, accountability. The science community, the publications, the universities, the funding agencies are working on this all the time. They don't need this help, so to speak, from Congress.

Science is a system of progress toward knowing what is right. It is better than the private marketplace or industrial manipulation. Let's let science work.

Federation of American Societies

for Experimental Biology,

Bethesda, MD, November 4, 2014.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McCarthy and Minority Leader Pelosi:

The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

(FASEB) would like to express its opposition to H.R. 4012,

the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. As a federation of 27

scientific and engineering societies, representing more than

120,000 biomedical researchers, we clearly understand and

support the principle that federal regulations must be based

on sound science. We are, however, concerned that the

language of the proposed legislation is so broad that it

could be used to prevent the implementation of nearly any

regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and,

by precedent, lead to similar restrictions on other agencies.

We agree that federal agencies should base regulations on

sound science. However, we are concerned that this

legislation will not increase transparency, and is, in fact,

duplicative of existing policies.

According to a March 9, 2009 Memorandum from the White

House on the subject of Scientific Integrity, ``when

scientific or technological information is considered in

policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-

established scientific processes.'' Additionally, under

Section (d), unless information is prevented from being

disclosed by statute or other regulation, ``an agency should

make available to the public the scientific or technological

findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy

decisions.'' In accordance with this Memorandum, the EPA has

its own Scientific Integrity Policy. As the policy notes, the

EPA is in compliance with the 2002 Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) Information Quality Guidelines, the 2005 OMB

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, the EPA's

Quality Policy for assuring the collection and use of sound

scientific data, and the EPA's Information Quality Guidelines

for establishing the transparency, integrity, and utility of

information used and published by the agency. This extensive

and comprehensive set of regulations more than ensures that

the science upon which EPA bases regulations is of the

highest technical merit, transparent, and reproducible.

Steps to enhance and put back transparency across all

disciplines of science are already underway at several other

federal agencies. For instance, the National Institutes of

Health (NIH) is developing a training module for graduate

students to enhance experimental design to increase the

reproducibility and transparency of research findings.

Funding agencies, including NIH and the National Science

Foundation, require inclusion of data management plans as

part of the grant application. These efforts enhance work

already being done by the agencies to ensure the

transparency, availability, and reproducibility of data

produced by federally-funded research.

As working scientists, we are dedicated to the open

circulation of our work, much of which is funded by federal

agencies that require dissemination, including the EPA, NIH,

the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.

We are equally committed to seeing that our research results

contribute to the good of the Nation, including the quality

of its environment and the health of its people. Establishing

unreasonably broad and burdensome requirements for the

implementation of already well-supported regulations, as H.R.

4012 appears to do, could weaken the scientific foundations

of government policy, contrary to the stated goals of the

bill.

For these reasons, FASEB opposes the Secret Science Reform

Act in its present form.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Haywood, PhD,

FASEB President.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oregon. I rise in opposition to this legislation, H.R. 1422, as yet another attempt to gut the EPA and to reform it into an advocate for industry.

Now, the proponents make claims that sound noble and virtuous, like increasing transparency and participation.

But make no mistake: the bill is simply a way to increase the role and influence of special interests, to tip the scales in favor of these special interests, and to decrease actual scientific input into the EPA decisions and rulemaking.

Let me try to explain what is wrong here. Take, for example, the section in this bill that limits participation of board members who have relevant expertise.

Now, EPA has an advisory board whose job it is to review scientific and technical information being used as a basis for agency regulations. However, section 2 of this bill states: ``Board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work.''

Now, what does that worthy-sounding clause mean? Here is how it has been explained to me. If the EPA board member is a leading scientist in a field and has published works that are well cited by other scientists and works that would be used to establish the scientific findings affecting possible regulations, that board member would be prohibited from reviewing any such materials before the board related to her or his expertise because it draws on the scientific work of that person.

Now, I realize Congress sometimes has trouble dealing with expertise, but this bill is a solution in search of a problem. The EPA advisory board does and should use science; not industry science, not government science--science.

Science works so well and provides the most reliable knowledge because it is based on evidence, the validity of which is determined by other scientists in the free exchange of information. Expertise and influence of a claim in science and its application shouldn't be determined by the highest bidder or the politically most powerful.

The science should be allowed to operate. This restricts it or would restrict it if this were to become law.

Now, to make this bill even worse, while the bill would exclude experts advising in areas of their expertise, it would allow people with corporate or special-interest bias to affect the rulemaking if they only state their affiliation.

Now, while it sounds good to say you are increasing transparency, in reality

this simply strengthens the role of special interests--biased interests--in the process.

I urge all Members to carefully review the language and think about these implications. I think they will come to a decision to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming Imam Hamad Ahmad Chebli, the Imam of the Islamic Society of Central Jersey in South Brunswick, New Jersey. Imam Chebli has been both a friend and an ambassador of Islam to me and many others in New Jersey, and we are all honored that his prayer has opened this session of Congress.

Imam Chebli is a native of Lebanon and attended one of the most prestigious Islamic institutions in the world, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, where he received his master's in Islamic Canonical Law. He has been the religious leader of ISCJ since 1986, where he makes Muslims and non-Muslims feel welcome.

The depth of his faith and scholarship, his commanding dignity, and the warmth of his personality make him the most prominent and attractive figure of Islam in our region. In a period where the public understanding of Islam has grown greatly, we are fortunate to have Imam Chebli in our community.

He has worked hard to build interfaith dialogue and public understanding, serving as a member of the North and South Brunswick Diversity Committee and of the regional clergy association. Most recently, New Jersey's Governor appointed Imam Chebli to the Governor's Leadership Summit on Diversity.

He and I have a friendship and association that has lasted many years, especially since September 2001, and I greatly value our friendship.

Imam Chebli is the proud husband of Mona Rich, and he is the loving father of their six children; Ahmad, Muhammad, Maryam, Mahmood, Khalid, and Marwa; and the loving grandfather to seven grandchildren.

Through his inspiring prayer this morning, we can all gain wisdom and guidance.

I thank my friend from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. We have heard about the nature of this very dirty material that is dug, rather than pumped, and the fact that it will go through America, not to America.

Now, we might ask, on a day when U.S. oil production was announced to reach a 30-year high of more than 9 million barrels, why we would be even considering this. Well, it is not because this fits into our energy picture.

We will risk oil spills that are a mess to clean up. And we hear, oh, but oil spills won't occur. Well, the TransCanada pipeline, also known as Keystone, had 12 separate oil spills in its first year of operation, tens of thousands of gallons. It is hard to clean up. And, as you have also heard from my friend, this doesn't count as petroleum, and, therefore, they don't pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. So taxpayers are on the hook for this difficult cleanup.

But the real problem is none of these points. It is that it is taking us down the road where we should not be going. This is the most carbon- intensive liquid fuel--if you want to call it liquid--that we could possibly use. It is changing our very climate in ways that are deadly and costly. We shouldn't be going in this direction. It is that simple.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of two of our country's most transformational conservation laws, the Wilderness Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act.

Earlier this month I celebrated the Anniversary of LWCF and the Wilderness Act at the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey. This area was the first wilderness established within the Department of the Interior following the passage of the Wilderness Act.

LWCF money has also contributed to the preservation of the Great Swamp, and in fact LWCF money totaling more than 400 million dollars has come to New Jersey. In other states around the country the LWCF has contributed even more.

I, along with Secretary Jewell and many members of Congress, have advocated making permanent full funding for the LWCF. We must remember that over 50 years, in only ONE year has the LWCF received the full authorized funding. The idea was to take revenues from depleted resources, in other words from off shore oil drilling and mineral extraction, and use that to preserve other resources, land.

Ecologists have made it especially clear in recent years that we really must have interlocking tracts of land, what Frederick Law Olmstead called emerald necklaces, across the country. It is not enough to protect only isolated places; that is not enough for migrating species and even plant communities, who must interact over long distances.

Wilderness is important for so many reasons. Wilderness provides more than simply beautiful vistas, it is how nature heals herself and it is critically important for human well-being. What we forget is that preserving only a few headliner areas is insufficient. And that is why Congress really must reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund because it is critically important to this whole picture.

One of my proudest moments in my now 16 year career in congress was in the early months in office when some of us junior members managed to revive the state side matching program, of the LWCF the landslide conservation program.

It certainly was a proud moment and since then I have led an annual effort to fund the LWCF.

This year 170 members of congress joined me in a letter to appropriators to provide funding for the LWCF. But it is not enough if we don't reauthorize it now and provide full finding.

This Congress I am also proud to be the sponsor of two wilderness bills of national importance, the Udall-Eisenhower Artic Wilderness Act, to permanently designate the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain as wilderness, and the Red Rocks Wilderness Act, to protect as wilderness Utah's Red Rocks area.

We're going to get these bills passed one way or another, we must. It is so important, not just because of the naturalness that is preserved, but because of what it says about our country.

The Wilderness Act, when Hubert Humphrey and others introduced it, sat around on the legislative agenda for years--Congress after congress. It was the support of citizen activists that created the momentum necessary to pass The Wilderness Act. And it will be the work of activists like those with the Alaska Wilderness League, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and the Wilderness Society that will continue to work for the passage of wilderness bills.

The Wilderness Act provides some of the strongest land protections in the world by recognizing wilderness areas as where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by humans, where humans ourselves are visitors who do not remain.

From the Great Swamp Wilderness in New Jersey to the Arctic Refuge in Alaska--wilderness is essential to safeguard our nation's most wild and beautiful areas, not simply to preserve beautiful scenery, but to give nature the necessary resilience to sustain itself, and also to give humans places to renew and master ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a courageous American who took a stand against hate and intolerance in her hometown of Billings, Montana.

On a cold winter night in December a little more than 20 years ago, members of a local hate group threw a brick through the window of her young son's room. It was just the latest, but one of the most brazen and ominous, acts of hate committed against not just the local Jewish community but other minority groups as well, including Native Americans. Fortunately, Schnitzer's son, Isaac, was not injured, but Tammie knew this attack on her family--and on her community--required a very public response.

Her first step was to go to the editor of the local newspaper and ask that the attack on her family and her faith be a front page story. It was, and it led to the paper and the entire community rallying around the Schnitzer's, with paper menorah's soon festooning some 10,000 homes and businesses in Billings. The response of the people of Billings to this and other acts of hate didn't simply stymie the purveyors of such hate in and around Billings--it started a national movement that has spawned the ``Not In Our Town'' nonprofit group that fights acts of hate all across America.

I'm pleased that Hadassah and several of its New Jersey chapters, including the Alissa and Monroe Township Hadassah chapters in my Congressional district, will be honoring Tammie Schnitzer on September 21st. My best wishes to them and my deepest thanks to Tammie Schnitzer for her courage to public service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

There is not a member of this body who does not share the view that the terrorist organization known as the ``Islamic State in the Levant'' (ISIL) is a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria. ISIL's acts of barbarism are well known. The question before us is whether arming an amorphous and largely unknown Syrian opposition is the proper response to ISIL's rise.

The idea of arming the Syrian opposition has been discussed and even debated in this body over the last several years. And until now, Congress has rejected military involvement with Syrian opposition groups because we did not truly understand the size, composition, and intentions of the various opposition groups, and were concerned that the unforeseen consequences of our involvement could easily ruin any advantages there might be. The fact that ISIL emerged unexpectedly out of the Syrian fighting and surprised us with their military success in Iraq illustrates well America's lack of understanding of the situation. Furthermore, just this week, the head of the Free Syrian Army was quoted as saying if his group received U.S. aid, he would use it against the Assad regime, not against ISIL. As I have pondered this question and discussed it with experts and with citizens in New Jersey, I have come away with more and more questions about the wisdom of the proposed action we are debating today.

The President's proposed strategy seems very similar to the one we have pursued in previous conflicts: arm and train local forces in the region and plan to turn over responsibility for the fight to those governments. That strategy failed spectacularly in Iraq. Earlier this

year, U.S. trained-and-equipped Iraqi security forces melted away in the face of ISIL forces. We have been told the reason was because of the Iraqi government under former Prime Minister al Maliki. With a new Iraqi government in Baghdad results would be better. That is hardly a believable or a reassuring argument.

The American public was told the same thing years ago after the South Vietnamese generals ousted Premier Diem in late 1963. If only we had the right leadership in Saigon, they argued, we could win the war. In the wake of that U.S.-sponsored coup, the political chaos in South Vietnam only deepened, and the Viet Cong and their North Vietnamese allies benefited from and exploited the situation to their political and military advantage, and less than a year after Diem's ouster President Johnson began committing large numbers of American ground troops to Vietnam in a vain effort to roll back the rising tide of support for the Viet Cong. Of course, the situation today in Syria and Iraq is not exactly like Vietnam under Diem or Iraq under Saddam, but we are slow to learn lessons.

Proponents of this resolution argue that a newly trained and equipped Iraqi security force may be in the field in a few months. If history is any guide, it is unlikely that schedule will be met, and in any case, Administration officials have made it clear they believe the Iraqi security forces will require significant external help for years in order to retake ISIS-controlled territory in Iraq.

In Syria, the Administration now proposes to arm an amorphous collection of Syrian opposition groups in the hopes that they can become a viable combat force. Arming Syrian rebels brings to mind our experience with the Afghan mujahedeen a generation ago. Can we have any confidence that our weapons will not be used against us eventually? The amendment before us explicitly acknowledges--through its reporting requirements--that American advisors may be killed by supposedly friendly Syrian opposition fighters, just as American advisors have been killed by Iraqi and Afghan turncoats in those nations. This amendment also recognizes--again through its reporting requirements-- that American military aid may be diverted to Islamic militants through Syrian opposition traitors. If we can already see that this proposed action will lead to dead American advisors and pilfered American military aid, why are we continuing down this road?

It was telling that during his trip to the region earlier this month, Secretary of State Kerry came up empty when he sought concrete military commitments from other countries--even countries directly threatened by ISIL and its ideology. In the 1991 Persian Gulf war to oust Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, each of those nations contributed significant military forces or allowed the use of their bases for Coalition forces. If the governments most threatened by the march of ISIL refuse to commit combat forces against it while American pilots are risking their lives daily in airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq, why should we put more American lives at risk on the ground in Iraq and Syria? I must vote no.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3222, the Flushing Remonstrance Study Act introduced by Representative Grace Meng from New York, representing the borough of Queens.

H.R. 3222 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the feasibility of including sites associated with the signing of the Flushing Remonstrance in 1657 as units of the National Park Service.

These sites include the John Bowne House and the Old Quaker Meetinghouse in Flushing, Queens which are associated with the history of religious freedom in America and the signing of the Flushing Remonstrance.

The Flushing Remonstrance was a 1657 petition to Director-General of New Netherland, in which several citizens requested an exemption to the Director-General's ban on Quaker worship.

While the signers of the Flushing Remonstrance didn't know it at the time, this petition is today recognized as a precursor of the First Amendment of the Constitution and one of the earliest demands for freedom of religion in what became the United States.

The Quaker's who chose to practice their religion as well as those who volunteered their homes for Quaker meetings, such as John Bowne, were jailed. Bowne, whose home had been the place where the Flushing Remonstrance was signed, was actually banished from the colony.

On his trip back to Europe, Bowne carried with him an account of the case which he eventually presented before the Dutch West India Company. The reply established religious liberty in the colony and stated that ``The consciences of men at least ought ever to remain free and unshackled.''

Located a few blocks away from the Old Quaker Meetinghouse, the Bowne house has changed little since 1680. However, the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom of speech that were established in the Flushing Remonstrance have continued to evolve as our country and our influence around the world has grown.

I think it is vital that citizens and politicians alike recognize the importance of freedom of speech and political activism in our country.

I hope that the continued preservation of these historic places will serve as a reminder to all Americans of the fights that resulted in the rights we enjoy in this country today, as well as those around the world that continue to fight for their own right to speak freely and practice their religion without fear of persecution or consequence.

I applaud Rep. Meng for her advocacy and urge support for H.R. 3222.