Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 76, legislation that would make supplemental appropriations to provide continued support to the Iron Dome system currently in operation in Israel.

As my colleagues know, the Iron Dome system, built jointly with the U.S. and Israel, has been used multiple times over the last several years, and many times in recent weeks alone, to defeat rocket attacks staged by Hamas out of Gaza. As those attacks represent the most imminent danger to Israeli population centers, our continued support for that system is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5272, sham legislation that fails to address the humanitarian crisis on our country's southern border.

I strongly object to the language contained in H.R. 5230 that would amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Re-authorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA). When Congress unanimously passed and President Bush signed the TVPRA, the purpose was to address the flow of child trafficking out of Central America, a process which requires a more extensive review and care for these children. I believe that changes to this law, especially those adopted in haste, would not be in the best interests of our nation or the children who suffer from trafficking. The commercial exploitation of children, especially sexual abuse, is among the most heinous crimes known to humanity and we should not engage in changing policy hastily or without a great deal of deliberation.

I also object to H.R. 5272 which would prohibit the expansion of the President's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and prevent those that otherwise would be eligible for deferred action. This program was designed to protect children who came to this country as minors through no choice of their own. DACA does not confer lawful immigration status, does not alter an individual's existing immigration status, and does not provide a path to citizenship. This legislation is unrelated to the current crisis, and is nothing more than a handout to radical Republicans who have no compassion.

We do this country a disservice with both H.R. 5230 and H.R. 5272. The time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 676. This legislation, which authorizes a lawsuit that the Republican Party plans to bring against President Obama, is a waste of time and a waste of money.

Congress has two days before the August recess and instead of bringing up unemployment insurance, the Bring Jobs Home Act, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, universal pre-K legislation reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act, reauthorization of the Export Import Bank reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, legislation addressing global climate change, legislation to fund the federal government after September 30th of this year, gun control, comprehensive immigration reform, or any number of other issues that have stalled in the House since the Republicans took control in 2010, this is what the Republican majority has chosen to pass.

The proposed lawsuit has dubious legal standing and no evident merit at all. Every administration has used the executive authority delegated to it by the Constitution and by the Congress, in the implementation and execution of our nation's laws. In fact, Supreme

Court Justice Antonin Scalia said ``The framers of the Constitution emphatically rejected a system in which Congress and the Executive can pop immediately into court, in their institutional capacity, whenever the President . . . implements a law in a manner that is not to Congress's liking.''

I hope that the American people will see this action for what it is-- a stunt--an attempt to placate a radical wing of the Republican Party. The majority should be embarrassed to use Congressional time for this rather than for real, pressing issues.

Mr. Chair on December 28, 1973 the Endangered Species Act was signed into law, meaning we are currently commemorating the 40th anniversary of one of our nation's strongest and most successful environmental laws: the Endangered Species Act.

Passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by President Richard Nixon, the Act was the first comprehensive law to address the global extinction crisis.

The Endangered Species Act took a zero-tolerance approach to achieving its goals: no new extinctions, no exceptions.

As a result, 99 percent of listed species have been saved from extinction and are on the path to recovery.

Some iconic American species, such as the bald eagle, the American alligator, and the Pacific gray whale, have recovered from the brink of extinction and are now thriving in their natural habitats.

Beyond the preservation of individual species, the Endangered Species Act helps to keep the strong interdependent web of life.

Today, conservation efforts under the Endangered Species Act are a model for preserving biodiversity around the world.

Unfortunately, here in the House today we are proceeding with reforms that would undoubtedly weaken provisions of the Act with the belief that doing so will somehow yield greater benefits for the species it was designed to protect.

As a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, I've been committed to protecting our nation's strongest and most successful environmental laws.

Let us reject the bill before us and in doing so commerate the 40th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before us today has many problems, but one of the most egregious and obvious is in section 3, where the bill declares that any and all data submitted by States, tribes, or local governments shall be considered the ``best scientific data available.''

I am offering here an amendment with my friend from California (Mr. Huffman), which would strike that provision and would force Federal agencies to accept as the best available science actual science.

The language in question says:

The term ``best scientific and commercial data available''

includes all such data submitted by a State, tribal, or

county government.

The Endangered Species Act is one of our Nation's strongest and most successful environmental laws. One reason for that success is that the law has been based on scientific evaluation using peer-reviewed science by trained scientists, not the whims and ideological wishes of legislators.

The Endangered Species Act is not a shouting match or a fight for power and influence among interested parties; it is a look at the need to protect endangered species as determined by the best science. This language that the best scientific and commercial data available includes all such data submitted is as preposterous as it is impractical. Where is the quality control?

Now, what happens if a locality submits something that is not, in fact, true, or not, in fact, established within the scientific community? Or how about if a State or a tribe submits one thing and another State or tribe submits conflicting views? Are they both the best available evidence? What about where a county thinks its data is better than the State's data? These are all situations that not only might occur, but are likely to occur.

A witness at the committee hearing on this bill--in fact, a witness that was invited by the Republicans--testified to this very point, saying that all does not equal best, highlighting the fact that this bill creates more problems than it solves.

Agency decisionmakers must evaluate data from all sources to ensure that they are making determinations based on the best information available, and we should encourage them to do so.

Let's not have another case of congressional malpractice where Members of Congress play scientists and try to present political restrictions on the science.

The peer review process is the best tool available, and that is how we draw out the best science. Maybe scientists occasionally make mistakes, no doubt about it, and new findings can call for a revision of the science. But surely we don't think that Members of Congress are better at determining what is scientifically factual than the biological and environmental scientists.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Chair the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oregon said it well: All does not equal best.

The other side evidently is embarrassed by the language in the bill. There are many problems with this bill, but this particular section has some language that they should be embarrassed about, and so they are saying what they wish the language said or what they want it to say.

The best scientific data includes all such data. It does not say we will consider all data. It says all equals best. That cannot be true. That should be removed from the bill. That is what this amendment does.

Decisions on whether or not a particular study or data set have scientific merit with respect to an individual species listing should be made in the context of peer-reviewed science, not because one State wants one thing and one county wants another thing.

It should be based on the best scientific data. That is what this amendment would ensure.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I commend the authors of this resolution, Representatives McGovern, Jones, and Lee, for their leadership on this issue of war and peace.

The topic of limiting our future military involvement in Iraq deserves more than 1 hour. It deserves an entire legislative day to discuss this resolution and the larger question: the issue of the war- making powers of Congress. The history of our involvement in Iraq and exactly how we came to this point is of paramount importance in understanding why it is vital that the House pass this resolution. But since time is limited, let me come to the point: no more American soldiers should kill or be killed in Iraq to redeem our past mistakes.

The United States has spent years and billions of dollars trying to rebuild Iraq's armed forces, to no end. Sending 300 or 3,000 or 30,000 advisers to Iraq would be a pointless exercise when the Iraqi Army continues to melt away in the face of rebels.

Unless the Iraqi Government can inspire confidence in Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a that it is a fair, legitimate government concerned with the welfare of all Iraqis, no amount of money or American advisers will save it. We have already lost more than 4,000 Americans in one war in Iraq. Let's not invoke the insidious and fallacious argument that our previous heavy investment justifies further heavy investment.

Had America not waged an unnecessary war in Iraq starting in 2003, there would be no need for us to debate this resolution now. Like so many misguided military interventions in our history, America's misguided war with Iraq unleashed forces that we cannot now control. We should not compound that error by squandering more lives and money in Iraq.

I hope we can have, beyond this moment now, a fuller debate of the war-making powers of Congress. I hope, as Representative Lee said a few moments ago, that we can have a debate on the repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force that was the excuse for much military, paramilitary, and domestic intrusive activities in this country.

But for now we should, I think, recognize the good acts of Representatives McGovern, Jones, and Lee in bringing this resolution to the floor. I think it will help further the debate greatly. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and accomplishments of James C. McCloskey who has served for the past 34 years as the Founder and Executive Director of Centurion Ministries of Princeton, New Jersey, and has been a tireless advocate for people wrongly convicted across our country.

A native of Philadelphia, Jim graduated from Bucknell University in 1964. After three years as a naval officer in Japan and Vietnam, Jim spent 13 years in business in Tokyo and Philadelphia. After his stint in the business world, Jim opted for a change and went to pursue a Masters in Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary. During that time Jim served as a student chaplain at the Trenton State Prison where he met then inmate Jorge De Los Santos.

After listening to the convicted man's claims of innocence Jim took it upon himself to review the case.

After reading the entire record of the case, he came to believe that Mr. De Los Santos was innocent. Jim then, using his own money, spent the next three years, including a yearlong sabbatical from seminary, investigating Mr. De Los Santos' case. After bringing forward the only witness against Mr. De Los Santos, Jim hired a young lawyer, Paul Casteleiro, to have the case retried. In July 1983 Mr. De Los Santos was exonerated and freed and Centurion Ministries was launched. Jim knew that this was his calling for the rest of his life.

Most of the early cases came from the stories that Mr. De Los Santos had told Jim regarding several other men Mr. De Los Santos believed were innocent. Upon reading their case files Jim came to believe them, too. Jim worked alone until 1987 when he obtained his fifth exoneration and the general public took notice of this remarkable work he was doing.

He founded Centurion Ministries in order to bring voice to those who have lost all appeals and thus all hope of having their wrongful convictions brought to light. Beginning with a staff of just himself, Centurion Ministries has grown and now has eight full time staff, five part time staff, and a group of 23 part time volunteers who dedicate their time to the cause of the wrongfully convicted.

Centurion Ministries takes on the difficult cases. They do not shun cases that can turn on DNA evidence, but because there are other avenues for inmates whose cases have DNA evidence, Centurion Ministries' focus has been primarily on cases that require a field investigation and a very savvy lawyer. To date Centurion Ministries has overturned the wrongful

conviction of 53 individuals who have served a combined 1083 years wrongfully imprisoned, and at any given time is working on 20 or so cases at various stages of investigation.

I cannot stress strongly enough the courage and heart Jim exemplifies in this now crowded field of work. He not only chose to work for people he did not know, but he used his own money to do so. Unlike most of the people doing similar work today who have universities to pay their salaries and give them office and staff, Jim had only himself to rely on. He lived modestly and devoted himself to this cause. His commitment to these individuals he works for does not end with their freedom. They are family.

Although Jim has announced he will no longer have an active role in the day to day operations of Centurion Ministries in the spring of next year, I know that he will continue to be a force for justice for years to come. He is a very special person. I join many admirers of Jim McCloskey in thanking him for his work and wishing him well in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3393 the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act and H.R. 4935 the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act.

These bills that come before the House this week continue the weekly pattern of picking and choosing which tax extenders to make permanent. Instead of looking at all of the tax extenders comprehensively Republicans are again picking the extenders that many Members may find easy to support and making them permanent while failing to pay for them. I find it ironic that Representative Camp has continued to bring permanent extenders to the floor, some of which he chose not to extend at all when he released his plan for comprehensive tax reform earlier this year.

H.R. 4935 expands the tax credit for families making as much as $160,000, families for which the tax credit is not essential. This legislation also changes the nature of the tax credit and will result in a family making as little as $14,500 to receive no tax credit, a credit that they desperately need. We should be expanding tax credits for low income families, not eliminating them.

H.R. 3393 seeks to lessen the burden on students and families seeking a higher education. While this is a noble goal, it does nothing to fix the underlying issue of paying for higher education, student loan debt. The class of 2012 graduated with an average of $29,400 in student loan debt; this legislation does nothing to address this. Instead of giving a tax break on tuition and other expenses we should reduce the need for student loans. We should double Pell Grant Funding. We should permanently extend and double Perkins funding. We should allow students to refinance student loan debt. Any one of these would do more good for student and families than this tax credit.

This Congress cannot continue blindly to pass permanent tax breaks. I have seen firsthand what happens when we take that approach. We did that under President Bush and went from budget surpluses to budget deficits. Deficits that have pushed Congress to reduce investment in our country in recent years.

I look forward to Congress addressing the tax extenders that require action by the end of the year in a serious way, not the way in which they have been brought before us thus far.

Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 2014, I offered an amendment to this legislation to address another facet of a national tragedy: the epidemic of suicide among our soldiers and veterans.

In March of this year, zero U.S. troops died in combat. In that same month, almost 700 soldiers and veterans died at their own hand.

This bill takes really enormous strides to treat the mental health problems underlying this epidemic. It provides tens of millions of dollars for therapy, outreach, and peer-to-peer support--and for that, the chairman and the ranking member, all the committee members, have my sincere praise and gratitude.

Suicide and the decision to take one's own life is complex and often mysterious, but we err if we think suicide is only a mental health problem. In truth, suicide is often the desperate act of a soldier or veteran in a desperate situation--and one important component of that desperation is financial stress.

My amendment has been endorsed by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. It would set aside up to $1 million to study these issues: to improve our understanding of the links between financial stress, financial abuse, and military suicide, and generate recommendations to fix these interlinked problems.

A few years ago, Army Sergeant Angelo Stevens was living with $100,000 in debt. He had just been told that, because of his deteriorating finances, he was at risk of losing his security clearance. If he lost his clearance, he would lose his job--which would make his debt even more unmanageable.

Sergeant Stevens met with a military financial planner. He left feeling hopeless and humiliated. He told a reporter, ``I walked out thinking, `If I'm dead my family can get $500,000 in life insurance, but I have to kill myself.' ''

Now, Sergeant Stevens ultimately found help and survived, but he was far from alone in his desperation. According to the Defense Department's Suicide Event Report, in 2011, almost one in three military suicides was linked to workplace or financial problems. About one in 10 was directly associated with excessive debt or bankruptcy. Nearly half were associated with family or legal stress that might also be related to financial stress. These numbers surely underestimate the problem, as financial data wasn't even collected for many suicide deaths.

So we know, through personal stories like Sergeant Stevens' and through existing data, that financial stress is a major contributor to military suicide. But here's what we don't know.

We don't know, in many cases of military suicide, whether financial stress contributed to the soldier's decision to take his or her own life.

We don't know how many soldiers lose their security clearances because of personal financial problems, nor how the loss of a clearance contributes to mental health problems or suicide.

We don't know, in any evidence-based way, whether existing military financial planning programs are working to alleviate financial stress, financial abuse, mental health problems, or suicide risk.

We need to understand the effects of financial stress and financial abuse on mental health problems, including suicide, among our soldiers. We need to understand how effectively the Defense Department is providing adequate, unbiased, comprehensive financial planning and financial counseling--and we need to understand the obstacles that prevent military personnel from seeking these services.

We need to understand how effectively the suicide prevention programs at the Defense Department, the VA, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are working together, and how they could work together better.

And we need to build connections between the mental health professionals and the financial planning professionals who serve our soldiers. Mental health problems and financial problems both contribute to suicide, and we should explore ways to treat these problems together rather than separately.

Earlier, I told the story of Sergeant Angelo Stevens. He was one of the lucky ones. A financial planner overheard his accounting of his struggles, and on her personal time, she helped him put his financial life back together. With a lot of help, Sergeant Stevens stepped back from the abyss.

But he got that help only by coincidence, not by design. We can do better. We can design our military to be more responsive, compassionate, and helpful to soldiers like Sergeant Stevens. We can pull more soldiers back from the abyss.

I appreciate my House colleagues' support for this amendment, and I hope that in any House-Senate conference on the final DoD appropriations bill this amendment will be retained. We need this information. It will help us save lives.

Madam Speaker, the Department of the Interior recently began the process of developing an offshore oil and gas leasing program for 2017 to 2022.

However, the development of a 5-year program isn't simply about which areas should be leased and drilled and which should not. It is about whether drilling in new offshore fields is the way of the future.

As a member of the Safe Climate Caucus, I am here to ask: How will we address the imminent and multiple threats of climate change resulting from our overdependence on carbon fossil fuels?

We could double down or triple or quadruple down on the energy sources of the last two centuries, or we could take steps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and have a sustainable energy future.

The last few years have seen tremendous progress in harvesting the renewable energy potential of our oceans. We should oppose the unwise expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing and drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas.

This bill creates a new Department of Education Web site that includes data allowing prospective students to better understand the cost of specific institutions, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for working with me to improve this bill before it came to the floor.

The current Department of Education Web site is incomplete and misleading. The current Web site does not include the net price to a student according to that student's income level, which could cause, and does cause, lower and middle class students to reject schools that they, in fact, could afford.

They or their parents would see average net price, calculated for all students, and immediately assume it is unaffordable for them. The changes that I have included in this bill allow a parent or a prospective student to find, upfront, on the home page, the average net price of attending, based on the family's income level. And this information may lead students to consider institutions they would have otherwise excluded.

The difference between the average cost, calculated for all students, and the cost to a student, say, from a $40,000 income level, may be many thousands of dollars.

Now, I should add, in conclusion, that while this bill that we take up today makes some progress, this and the other bills we will be considering fall short of what is really needed: a comprehensive effort to help more students afford college.

We should be considering doubling the Pell Grants, reducing student loan interest rates, and doing all those other things that would be in a comprehensive higher education bill. I am sorry to say we are ignoring those solutions.

Nevertheless, I welcome the modest improvements that we will see in the legislation being considered here, and I hope that soon we will get to the comprehensive higher education legislation that the students of America deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4508, introduced by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), would extend the East Bench Irrigation District's water contract, as he has said, for 6 years, pending a judicial ruling. The extension will allow the water to continue to be delivered to nearly 60,000 acres in the Beaverhead Valley of Montana, will protect the right for contract renewal, and will be useful to the residents of the area while the court confirmation process is given time for completion.

I support this legislation. I ask my colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

H.R. 4562 would authorize landowners served by the Northport Irrigation District to prepay the remaining portion of construction costs allocated to them for the North Platte Project.

In exchange, the landowners who pay will no longer be subject to Federal acreage limitations and other requirements associated with the Reclamation Reform Act.

I believe no one from the minority intends to oppose this legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is ready to close, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 3716 would ratify a water settlement agreement between the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and a subsidiary of the Vidler Water Company. The agreement allows the Vidler Water Company to continue operating a water project that provides water to the northern Reno area and fairly compensates the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe for any actual or potential water losses.

As I understand the situation, the legislation is supported by all affected parties, and it will settle potential claims by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe against the United States at no cost to American taxpayers.

Consequently, I support this legislation. I am happy to see it come to the floor. I believe my colleagues on the minority of the Committee on Natural Resources concur.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman from Montana is ready to close, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) for his work--his persistent, diligent work on H.R. 2430 and the preceding legislation that created this important park site.

The Hinchliffe Stadium Heritage Act that we are looking at now, of which I am pleased to be a cosponsor, enjoys the support of every Member of the New Jersey congressional delegation--I should say the enthusiastic support of every Member of the New Jersey congressional delegation.

It will place within the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, which is one of the newest park service units in the country, this historic Hinchliffe Stadium.

I would say by mistake or oversight or because of difficulties in the first drafting of the original legislation, the park boundaries did not include this historic stadium. This will correct that.

H.R. 2430 would adjust the boundaries of the current Great Falls national historic site to include the 10,000-seat stadium, which is currently listed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as one of the most endangered historic places in the country.

As we have heard, this is one of the last remaining stadiums in the Nation where Negro League baseball games were played and is home to the New York Black Yankees and the New York Cubans.

Even though the names of these teams include New York, this area is very much New Jersey and has tremendous importance to the people of New Jersey and to the history of New Jersey, and it is of interest to the entire country.

In preserving this historic stadium, we will be preserving a visual reminder of an unfortunate, but not forgotten, era of racial segregation. Segregation in America extended beyond the buses of Alabama and the Deep South that was engrained throughout American society, even into our national pastime--baseball.

The Hinchliffe Stadium will serve as an educational opportunity for future generations to learn about this unfortunate past, so that we can continue to move forward collectively as a Nation.

This historic site brings memories and history of the industrial revolution, of the political and patriotic origins of our Nation, of art and culture, and American industry. Now, it will also include this historic sports site.

Again, I applaud my colleague, Mr. Pascrell, for his efforts, and I urge support of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague from Paterson, New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, again, this has the unanimous support of the New Jersey congressional delegation. This is of national historic importance, and I urge support of this legislation to expand the boundary of this national historic site.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As many of us know, finding a location for a memorial in Washington, D.C., is not always easy. In 2001, Congress authorized the Adams Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in Washington, D.C., to honor the public service and legacy of the Adams family. Planning often takes longer sometimes than the initial authorization allows, and in this case, the Foundation was granted an extension, which expired in 2013. H.R. 3802 grants another extension until 2020.

I am happy to provide more time to make sure that President John Adams and his wife, Abigail Adams, and President John Quincy Adams all receive the commemoration in our Nation's Capital that their sacrifice and service deserve.

I would particularly like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for sponsoring this bill and for navigating it through the legislative process. I think without his hard work this memorial may have been mired in the planning process and might never be built. I now believe that, with this extension, we will see a worthy and fitting commemoration of the Adams family.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Montana is ready to close, I strongly recommend we pass the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.