Floor Statements

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simple: to prohibit any Federal funds from flowing to law enforcement organizations that engage in any form of racial, ethnic, or religious profiling.

It's been a matter of concern for decades among minority communities when policing organizations engage in profiling, but recent events have brought the problem into sharp focus.

Starting last August, the Associated Press published a series of disturbing stories about the systematic racial, ethnic, and religious profiling conducted by the New York City Police Department against Muslim and Arab Americans in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana.

In September of last year, I asked the Department of Justice to investigate what we now know was a pattern of surveillance and infiltration by the New York Police Department against innocent American Muslims in the absence of a valid investigative reason. These Muslim communities were mapped, infiltrated, and surveilled simply because they were Muslim.

Profiling is wrong. Profiling on the basis of the race, ethnicity, and religion is a violation of core constitutional principles.

Profiling is also wrong because it is not good policing. Profiling is an unthinking, lazy, unprofessional approach to police work and intelligence work, and it only raises the risk that the real plot will slip through the cracks. Indeed, profiling is counterproductive.

The sloppiness of the NYPD surveillance effort was such that several non-Muslim establishments were labeled as being owned by Muslims and, contrary to the blanket assertions by some that the tactics have kept New York City safe, the NYPD failed to uncover two actual plots against New York City, those perpetrated by Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi.

In Shahzad's case, the FBI was surveilling both the mosque he attended and the Muslim Student Association of his accomplice. In Zazi's case, the NYPD actually took actions that let Zazi be tipped off about the FBI's investigation.

The NYPD's surreptitious, uncoordinated, and unprofessional approach to counterterrorism prevention within the American Muslim community shows that they have learned nothing from the lessons elucidated from the 9/11 Commission's report.

Now, let me be clear. This amendment is not aimed solely at one particular law enforcement organization. Over the decades, law enforcement agencies across the country have profiled against African Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities. Indeed, the Department of Justice has specific guidance prohibiting this practice because it has become widespread, and it has conducted litigation against Police Departments for using race or ethnicity to target citizens for arrest in California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States.

My amendment would ensure that no Federal funds are flowing to any law enforcement entity that the Department has identified as engaging in racial, ethnic, and religious profiling.

Racial, ethnic and religious profiling by police is not something taxpayer dollars should be spent for. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

People for the American Way,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2012.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the hundreds of

thousands of members of People for the American Way, I urge

you to support Representative Holt's amendment to H.R. 5326,

the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2013. A vote is anticipated this

afternoon. This amendment would prohibit federal funds made

available through the act to be used for programs or

activities that involve racial, ethnic, or religious

profiling by any federal, state, or local law enforcement

organization.

Such profiling undermines America's status as a nation

founded on Equal Justice Under Law. The story of America is

one of a nation founded on timeless ideals of liberty and

equality, and struggling generation after generation to make

those principles real for those not included. Society's

``outsiders'' are brought in and made to know that they in

fact belong to the community that is America. Profiling

damages that process. It sends a powerful message to entire

communities that they are, in fact, not quite the equal

members of society that we said they were. It tells them that

their very existence raises suspicions. It harms the

individuals profiled, as well as those who live in constant

apprehension of being profiled. The practice undermines our

nation's principles, and our federal government should not be

funding it.

Profiling does not even produce the benefits that it is

purported to provide: It is counterproductive. When limited

law enforcement resources are spent targeting innocent people

simply because of their real or perceived race, ethnicity, or

religion, that is not an efficient use of resources. Nor is

it efficient to alienate entire communities, making them feel

resentful toward or fearful of law enforcement. People living

in America should be able to rely on law enforcement as a

partner in making their lives safer. But those who feel

unfairly targeted by profiling will be far less likely to

cooperate with law enforcement when their cooperation is

needed, whether it is a case of local violent crime or

national security. That does not make our nation or our

communities safer.

A practice that undermines both our principles and our

safety is not one that the federal government should be

funding. We urge you to vote for Representative Holt's

amendment.

Sincerely,

Marge Baker,

Executive Vice President for Policy and Program.

Paul R. Gordon,

Senior Legislative Counsel.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

This is completely consistent with an appropriations bill for the Department of Justice. Just as we have spent decades getting away from the practice of harassing people for driving while black, we've got to get away from the practice of harassing people for shopping while Muslim.

Will the gentleman yield?

Reference was made to the Deputy National Security Advisor of President Obama's, Mr. Brennan.

What Mr. Brennan actually said was that, for the NYPD to be effective, they need the cooperation of the Muslim community. In fact, if you talk with the Muslim community, they are not only outraged by this behavior; they are intimidated by it. They see it as profiling. My colleague from New York and my colleague from Pennsylvania can say, well, of course everybody is operating under the law.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would hope that the gentleman would find a place for this instruction to the Department of Justice in order to make sure that the recipients of their grants do what they are, indeed, supposed to do. We're talking about money spent. We should make sure that the taxpayer money is spent for good policing.

Will the gentleman yield?

Since you refer to the Deputy National Security Advisor, it's worth pointing out that a couple of days later the White House felt it necessary to back away from his comments and to say:

John, in his remarks, wasn't referring to the NYPD

surveillance.

Of course he was, but they had to say he wasn't because he had misspoken. Rather, he was stating that everyone in the counterterrorism and law enforcement community must make sure that we are doing things consistent with the law.

In other words, Mr. Brennan was out of bounds, and the White House had to walk that back. So I wouldn't, if I were you, choose his endorsement of these NYPD activities as the best argument against my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, of which I am a cosponsor.

Over the last several years, we've watched the majority attempt to eliminate--and actually eliminate at least temporarily--the most successful crime-fighting program in the last 20 years, the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program.

Since this program's creation under President Clinton, it has literally put tens of thousands of police on the beat around the Nation, and it has promoted sensitive, effective policing across America.

The benefits are real. Crime rates in every category decreased as a result of this program. And when this program is gutted, communities feel the effects directly and immediately. The committee should have found the money to keep the COPS program strong, but evidently they gave it lower importance, which is why we are here with this amendment.

Last fall, the city of Trenton was forced to lay off nearly a third of its uniformed officers. It's been reported that our State's capital now has the same number of police on its rolls as it did in 1932. The city had hoped to soften the blow of the budget-driven layoffs through a COPS grant that would have allowed Trenton to hire back at least 18 officers; but unfortunately, because this Congress failed to fund the COPS program, Trenton got no money to hire the laid-off officers, and the people of Trenton are paying the price in a very real way.

Last year, something on the order of 150 people were shot within the city--more than twice, way more than twice the previous year. Street robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries up alarmingly. And people in the community tell me these trends are continuing to this day.

We need more money to rehire more police. We need it now before more Trentonians and other Americans lose their lives or suffer injury or property loss.

Now, I support NASA. I don't like the offset that we're using for this, but we can't allow the COPS program to wither. I wish the committee had funded this program--as it should be funded--with enough money to meet the legitimate needs of Trenton and other municipalities around America.

Every time I talk with law enforcement officials, I ask: How great is the need? How much can you actually do?

And every time they tell me the need vastly exceeds the resources; and with the resources, they could do a better job.

This past grant cycle, the COPS office received $2 billion in requests for assistance from around the country, but they only had about 200 million on hand. That's unacceptable. Crime doesn't take a holiday. We need to fully fund the COPS program in order to beat back violent crime around America to make cities more livable, to make America the place where we all want to live. My hope is that we'll be able to meet that goal during the appropriations conference process because the subcommittee didn't do it, which is why we're here now.

This amendment is a step in that direction. And I thank my colleagues--Representative Pascrell, Representative Grimm, Representative Reichert, who is not able to be here tonight--and the other sponsors for their strong leadership in this effort.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I want to join my colleagues in speaking in favor of enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations, particularly my colleague Steny Hoyer from Maryland, one of the authors of the ADA. And I rise to oppose any efforts to strip the Department of Justice's enforcement of these regulations.

My friend from Arizona is correct. It sounds as if we're in parallel universes talking about different things here, but let me tell you what we are talking about.

We are talking about equality of opportunity in America. Yes, we want to do all we can to give all possible access to swimming. It is important for all sorts of reasons.

We have, in this country, more and more people with disabilities, veterans returning from Afghanistan, people living to older ages. There are many people who can benefit greatly from access to swimming pools. And what we're talking about here is that principle of access, not just what it means for an individual with disabilities but what it means for the American ideal of equality of access.

The regulation and the law, itself, talk about a standard of readily achievable steps. ``Readily achievable,'' that's the key point here. Fixed lifts in a swimming pool, for example, are required only where installation is easy and inexpensive.

The readily achievable standard has been the governing legal principle for increasing access to facilities since the ADA's passage 22 years ago. These particular regulations have gone through extensive review to be consistent with that standard of ``readily achievable.''

For an existing pool, it means removing barriers that, to the extent that it is readily achievable, to do so. Let me continue on that point. A small, family-owned hotel, for example, does not

have to take the same steps as a large commercial hotel. And some businesses complain that, Well, hardly anyone has ever used the access accommodations they have made. That's like saying, well, the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act needn't apply because an African American or a Muslim hardly ever comes to this restaurant.

We're talking about civil rights here--the American ideal of equal access for all.

I could go over and over again what this regulation actually says, but I will place in the Record what the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities has said. They write in opposition to any congressional effort to roll back, or prevent enforcement of, the Justice Department's regulations about swimming pool access for people with disabilities.

The Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities includes a myriad of organizations, such as the American Association for People With Disabilities, the American Foundation for the Blind, the Brain Injury Association of America, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Disability Rights Network, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America, I tell my colleague. These are just some of the organizations that say this is an important principle of civil rights. And yes, also it will allow lots of individuals to have healthier lives and to be able to cope with their disabilities.

I would also include in the Record a letter from the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, where they, too, urge Members of Congress to oppose any effort to prevent using the funds to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations for greater access for people with disabilities to swimming pools.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Disability Rights Education

Defense Fund,

Berkley, CA, May 8, 2012.

Dear Representative: The Disability Rights Education and

Defense Fund (DREDF) is a leading national law and policy

center that advances the civil and human rights of people

with disabilities through legal advocacy, training, education

and public policy and legislative development.

On behalf of the DREDF, I am writing to urge you to oppose

Representative Carter's amendment to the Commerce, Justice,

and Science Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5326. This bill would

prevent the Department of Justice from using its funds to

enforce the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA)

regulations related to greater access for people with

disabilities to swimming pools. The Department of Justice

must have the authority to enforce the ADA, which is crucial

to protecting core civil rights principles and ensuring

people with disabilities have access to all activities

allowing them to participate in all aspects of society.

Weakening civil rights enforcement of the DOJ sets a

dangerous precedent.

The ADA was enacted over 21 years ago, and all the new ADA

rules have undergone extensive review for more than 10 years,

with multiple comment periods and many opportunities for

hotels and other facilities with swimming pools to learn

about their responsibilities. The new requirements set by the

2010 Standards for Accessible Design went into effect on

March 15 and already included a generous phase-in period of

18 months, which has been extended already by two months.

These standards were adopted as part of the revised

regulations for Title II and Title III of the ADA.

Unfortunately, the regulations were met with strong

opposition by the hotel industry due to a misunderstanding as

to what they require and the ``readily achievable'' standard,

which is carefully crafted to take the needs of covered

entities large and small, such as hotels, into account.

The readily achievable standard has been supported and

recognized by the business community since the passage of the

ADA in 1990. The standard, since its inception twenty-two

years ago, provides the Justice Department with flexibility

to determine what is achievable based on a covered entity's

particular circumstances, and to prevent the Department from

applying a rigid one-size-fits-all standard. In the case of

the accessibility regulations for pool lifts, therefore, if

it is too costly or burdensome for a small, family-owned

business to install a fixed pool lift at their facility, the

new regulations do not require that they do so. Furthermore,

pool owners that fail to comply with the regulations are not

subject to large damage awards largely in part to the fact

that individuals cannot obtain money damages against hotels

for violations of ADA's accessibility requirements.

The hotel industry has known about this issue for a decade,

and has participated in every step of the way. They were

given 18 additional months (past the publication of the

finalized rules in September 2010) to prepare before the

standards went into effect. As a result of the foregoing

built-in protections in the ADA, this amendment is not needed

to protect small hotel owners.

Additionally, it is crucial to understand that access to

swimming pools is important for people with disabilities--it

helps them participate in their communities, spend time with

their families and, for many, is a critical means of exercise

and maintaining good health and physical rehabilitation.

ADA accessibility requirements providing access to swimming

pools and spas is doable, not burdensome and are, in fact,

reasonable. If Congress intercedes by passing this amendment,

we fear a dangerous precedent will have been set that could

chip away at other provisions of the ADA and other civil

rights legislation. The final rule was the result of an

extensive regulatory process that provided ample opportunity

for participation. DREDF urges you to protect the ADA by

opposing amendments that will take away the right of the

Department to enforce such critical regulations.

Sincerely,

Susan Henderson,

Executive Director.

Consortium for Citizens with

Disabilities,

Washington, DC, April 23, 2012.

Dear Representative: The undersigned members of the

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), representing

people with disabilities, family members, and professionals

in the disability field, write in opposition to any

Congressional effort to roll back, or prevent enforcement of,

the Justice Department's September 15, 2010 regulations

setting forth requirements to ensure that swimming pools are

accessible to people with disabilities. These regulations,

the product of an extensive and considered process of

deliberation, were originally scheduled to go into effect on

March 15, 2012 and are now slated to take effect in May 2012.

H.R. 4200, introduced on March 16, 2012, would deprive the

Justice Department of the authority to enforce its own

regulations implementing the ADA with respect to the

accessibility of swimming pools. H.R. 4256, introduced on

March 26, 2012, would prohibit any court enforcement of the

Justice Department's new regulations concerning pool

accessibility for a period of one year from enactment of the

bill and require the Justice Department to issue new

regulations with weaker substantive standards (permitting

portable pool lifts even where installing a permanent lift

would be readily achievable). These bills present a number of

serious concerns.

First, the prospect of Congress preventing an executive

branch agency from enforcing its own regulations is very

troubling. The regulations at issue were promulgated by the

Department of Justice--the agency charged by Congress with

enforcement of the ADA--and based on standards issued by the

United States Access Board, a federal agency devoted to

developing and maintaining standards to ensure accessibility

for individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires the

Justice Department's accessibility regulations to be

consistent with Access Board standards. Both the Access Board

and the Justice Department have extensive expertise in

setting appropriate accessibility standards that take into

account the needs of people with disabilities as well as

those of business owners. Congress need not and should not

step in to deprive the agencies it designated to issue

accessibility standards of the authority to enforce those

standards.

Moreover, the opportunity to swim is important to

individuals with disabilities just as it is to everyone else.

People with disabilities should be able to enjoy swimming

pools for recreation and exercise. If enacted, H.R. 4200 and

H.R. 4256 would deprive many people with disabilities of

access to swimming pools, and would create uncertainty among

pool owners about the standards with which they must comply

in order to meet the ADA's requirements with respect to pool

access.

The regulations at issue do not present a significant

burden to hotels or other pool owners. For pools already

built when the new regulations take effect, the regulations

do not require owners to satisfy the new accessibility

requirements. If doing so is not ``readily achievable''--that

is, ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out

without much difficulty or expense''--they need not do so.

In addition, individuals with disabilities are not entitled

to damages in ADA lawsuits challenging the inaccessibility of

public accommodations.

The hotel industry has been aware of--and involved with--

the development of the new pool accessibility standards for a

decade. The Access Board initially issued standards for pool

accessibility in 2002 guidelines for recreational facilities.

In 2004, the Access Board incorporated those standards into

its new Accessibility Guidelines. The new regulatory

standards come directly from those 2004 guidelines. The

Justice Department first published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking requesting feedback concerning the Access

Board standards in 2004, followed by a second Advance Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking in 2008. The final rule was adopted on

September 15, 2010, and gave existing pools another eighteen

months to comply with the new requirements.

In conclusion, we oppose any effort to roll back

regulations providing accessible swimming pools for people

with disabilities. These places of public accommodation have

had

years of notice and substantial opportunity to prepare for

these requirements.

Sincerely,

ACCSES, American Association of People with Disabilities;

American Foundation for the Blind; American Network of

Community Options and Resources; Association of University

Centers on Disabilities; The Arc of the United States;

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Brain Injury

Association of America; Council of Parent Attorneys and

Advocates, Inc.; Daniel Jordan Fiddle Foundation; Disability

Rights Education and Defense Fund; Easter Seals; Epilepsy

Foundation; Helen Keller National Center; Mental Health

America; National Association of Councils on Developmental

Disabilities; National Council on Independent Living;

National Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome

Society; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; Paralyzed

Veterans of America; United Cerebral Palsy; United Spinal

Association.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to congratulate our friend and ally, the State of Israel, on the 64th anniversary of her founding.

A week ago, I had the honor of attending the National Days of Remembrance ceremony in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. As I listened to the program, I was reminded again that there was nothing pre-ordained about the rebirth of the State of Israel. When he was President, Dwight Eisenhower said, ``Our forces saved the remnants of the Jewish people of Europe for a new life and a new hope in the reborn land of Israel.'' Even upon its founding 64 years ago Israel's survival was not assured. That is still the case today, but we must commit to a lasting State of Israel, for all that she represents and stands for.

I have seen Israeli families terrorized by rocket attacks, so I understand the daily threat they face. The political movements sweeping the region from Libya to Syria have the potential--if hijacked by extremists--to pose mortal threats to Israel's existence. I am ever mindful of Israel's precarious position, which is why I have voted for over $35 billion in economic and military assistance for Israel during my time in Congress, and I will continue to support such measures in the future.

Ultimately, the only way to achieve lasting peace and security for the citizens of Israel is to secure a just, permanent, and peaceful settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, and their neighbors. In the past, genuine, measurable progress towards that goal has come when the United States has been most directly engaged in trying to bring the parties together. The Camp David and Oslo accords are examples. I remain convinced that real progress can be made towards peace--but our country must take the lead in bringing the two sides together. Just as our unshakeable commitment to our friendship and partnership with Israel should not be questioned by the PA, neither should the world community be allowed to doubt that our nation understands that resolving this conflict is essential to achieving peace throughout the Middle East.

On Israel's 64th anniversary, my hope remains that the future of Israel and the Middle East is one of peace, cooperation, security, and prosperity. I am pleased to join the Jewish community of New Jersey and all Americans in celebrating Israel's national successes, her great contributions to the international community, and her continued existence as an inspiration not only to Jews, but to all people.

I thank the gentleman, who is a pleasure to work with on the Education Committee.

Think of the great moments of American public policy--creation of land grant colleges, the GI Bill, providing student loans--all directed toward increasing access to higher education.

Four years ago, we, the Democrats, lowered interest rates for students to 3.4 percent, saving today's typical student borrower a couple thousand dollars. So 2 days ago, the Speaker, cornered by student outrage, says, well, the majority always intended to keep these rates low.

Well, if the Republicans really cared about keeping student interest rates low, why did their budget double those rates? They voted twice this year, clearly, explicitly, twice, to let rates double and collect $166 billion more from students so they could preserve tax giveaways for Big Oil.

Now they come and propose canceling preventive health care funding, not preventing cervical cancer, not preventing tobacco-related diseases, not preventing type 2 diabetes, eviscerating the Centers for Disease Control to preserve tax giveaways for Big Oil.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to

Mr. Speaker, a century ago Juliette Gordon Low assembled 18 girls from Georgia for the first Girl Scout meeting. From ``Daisy'' Low's start, 50 million people have been counted among the ranks of the Girl Scouts of the USA, and today there is a membership of more than 3 million.

Today, Girl Scouts are involved in much more than cookies. I've had the privilege to see their wonderful community service projects, have attended award ceremonies, and I know about their work to introduce girls of all ages to math and science.

Recently, I had the opportunity to spend time with members of the Girl Scouts from West Windsor in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Their robotics team placed first in the Eastern Pennsylvania Division of the FIRST LEGO League, and they're competing in the World Festival in St. Louis this week. I send them my best wishes.

I'm inspired by the Girl Scouts, and I rise to honor all the work that the Girl Scouts have done over 100 years, and I wish them success for the next 100 years.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman.

The proponents of this legislation, who are all friends and well intentioned, have repeatedly said there's a real threat, a threat to our critical infrastructure, affecting our waterworks, and our electric grid. But this bill is so poorly constructed it is not designed to protect against those threats. There are any number of flaws with it.

The American Civil Liberties Union points out that there would be an exception to all privacy laws; and it would allow companies to share private and personal data that they hold on their American customers, actually, among themselves and with the government. It would not limit companies to sharing only technical or nonpersonal data. They'd be free from any liability of misuse. They would only have to plead good intentions.

The bill fails to narrowly define the privacy laws it would contravene; it fails to put the cybersecurity efforts in a civilian agency; it fails to require companies to remove personal identifiable information about individuals; it fails to sufficiently limit the government's use of information; it fails to create a robust oversight and accountability structure. With the bill in its current form, there's no requirement that personal information must be removed. There's no consumer or stakeholder group involved in the oversight. There's no way for any member of the public to know if their data has been shared in error, and on and on.

And I should point out that it is not just the American Civil Liberties Union that opposes this. Even the American Library Association opposes it. The President, himself, says, if this passes, he will veto it. Passing this bill in response to the cyberthreat would be like going into Iraq because al Qaeda terrorists were a real threat.

Yes, there's a real threat. This is not the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to consider the life of David L. Waltz, who died of brain cancer last month in Princeton, NJ, at age 68. David Waltz was one of the world's leading experts and creative forces in computer science, and a fine example of a researcher, a teacher and mentor, and a life well lived. He was what we talk about when we talk about America's creative spirit and educational excellence and path-breaking industry.

A pioneer in artificial intelligence, David produced early research that led to Internet search engines that we all use. He also invented techniques that allow designers to look at two dimensional data from three dimensional perspectives, and he showed how to extend those constraint-propagation techniques beyond visualization to optimization of scheduling, routing, or building. His ideas and computer techniques of neural networks and machine learning are eagerly applied by computer companies, power companies, medical researchers, and healthcare providers. David's advances made it possible for computers to move beyond laborious bit-by-bit checking and referencing to a fixed checklist and to begin to recognize patterns, whether applied to images or speech or music.

Taught by the renowned Marvin Minsky at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where David received his Bachelor's and Ph.D. degrees, he went on to teach at the University of Illinois and Brandeis University. As head of the software division of the iconic company Thinking Machines he produced software innovations that have long outlasted that computer company. A decade ago David founded the Columbia University Center for Computational Learning Systems, where he worked until his death.

Surely more important than all the computer ideas, big and small, that he spawned are the many creative people he inspired, taught, and mentored. People who worked with him said everyone can remember a meeting, a conversation, or a simple thoughtful word when David changed one's research direction, career, or entire course of life for the better. In recent weeks his colleagues and students recorded their admiration for David and their sorrow at his death. Phrases like ``amazing mentor'', ``mentor with unreserved support and encouragement'', ``amazing colleague and boss'', and ``wise and understanding'' appear over and over in their remembrances.

David's colleagues called him a listener who inspired attention, someone who was as eager a listener as a talker, and someone who carried his great stature in the field gently and with genuine humility. He imbued his research teams with optimism by always drawing out merit of the work of others. And he built teamwork by sharing his interests in art, literature, music, and culture well beyond the immediate concerns of the research team. He encouraged his students and colleagues not to narrow their thinking; as a result the group could contribute as much to the treatment of epilepsy as to power grid blackouts. Everything was food for thought and an opportunity for an amusing or inventive insight.

Probably the greatest praise for David's leadership came from women who have worked with him. Some credited him with providing the greatest opportunities for career advancement for women of anyone in the field. David recruited and promoted women not as a crusader for equal rights but because it was for him obviously the right and wise thing to do.

The lessons that teachers, researchers, supervisors--in fact any of us here in this House or elsewhere--can draw from David Waltz are not primarily about computer science and artificial intelligence. They are that the greatest creativity comes from inspiring others; the greatest technique of team-building is listening; the greatest innovation comes from devoting time to others' ideas; and the greatest wisdom is kindness.

I know all this to be true about David Waltz because he was a good friend of mine, and I personally also know he brought all of his wonderful qualities of uplifting and inspiring and nurturing others to his wonderful wife Bonnie and his two children, Jeremy and Vanessa.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues who were Members of this body some 10 years ago may recall my coming to the floor on behalf of my constituents, the Hasan family of Milltown, New Jersey--Durre, Nida, Asna, Anum, and Iqra Hasan. They lost their husband and father, Waqar Hasan, on September 15, 2001, 4 days after the tragic events of September 11. That night, an angry man walked into Waqar's convenience store in Dallas, Texas. He ordered two hamburgers and shot the 46-year- old husband and father in the face.

This was not a robbery gone awry. It was a deliberate act of hate based on Waqar's heritage and physical appearance. When asked by police why he shot Waqar, the shooter expressed no remorse. He said, ``I did what every American wanted to but didn't.''

When Waqar Hasan came to the United States from Pakistan in 1993, he did so in search of a better life for his family. After working in New Jersey, he took an opportunity to run a store in Texas and was going to bring his family to join him after he was established. The Hasans epitomized the hardworking, optimistic spirit that immigrants always brought to this country. They were on the path to permanent residency and, eventually, American citizenship when Waqar lost his life for no other reason than that he was a Muslim and that the murderer thought Waqar had a Middle Eastern face.

It looked at that time as if Waqar's death ended the family's path to citizenship. The widow and four school-aged girls were subject to immediate deportation. After exhausting all legal and administrative options to allow Durre, Nida, Asna, Anum, and Iqra to remain in the United States, I determined that a private bill was the only possible course of action. Finally, in 2004, Congress passed and President Bush signed this private bill into law, giving the family a path to their dream. A few weeks ago, the Hasans took the oath of U.S. citizenship in our New Jersey congressional office. These five remarkable women had endured a long, arduous pathway from tragedy to citizenship. They formally tied their futures to the United States of America.

In a real sense, though, this naturalization ceremony was about the United States of America as much as it was about these five women. These five women were tied to America long before they took their oaths. They considered themselves Americans, and the United States of America had an obligation to them for many years.

At the ceremony, we saw hope coming out of tragedy--a fair result out of an insane injustice--and compassionate concern out of impersonal laws and regulations. The United States intends to provide and strives to give hope, fairness, and compassion, but these are not automatic. Cruel fate or happenstance often threatens to crush hope and opportunity. Irrational human passions and prejudices can thwart justice and fairness. The demands of life in a busy, complicated society and the exigencies of a complicated legal code can crowd out compassion.

In 2001, all across America, Americans reacted in dismay when they heard the news of the hate crime.

When they learned that the murderer committed his brutality in retaliation for the September 11 attacks in an act of twisted patriotism, they knew it was a blot on our country. Americans felt the pangs even more deeply when they learned that Waqar Hasan left behind a struggling widow and four little girls.

For most Americans, that was the end of the story as they went back to their busy lives. They thought the wheels of justice will turn and take care of this. They didn't think about the United States' obligation to this family, nor did they consider how impersonal the law can be. On March 16, finally, hope, fairness, and compassion prevailed. It was wonderful and heartwarming.

The people of America and our government have an odd attitude toward immigration and immigrants. Often forgetting our own origins and even our own best interests, we resist diversity and even lash out at others, like ourselves, because we mistakenly think they are not like ourselves. Our country has a founding commitment and a history of openness, punctuated, I must say, with instances of rejection, bias, and hatred. The historical record is very clear that openness towards immigrants and policies of inclusion have greatly benefited us. Human prejudices sometimes break through. We see it even today. But with this oath of citizenship, the aspirations of Waqar Hasan for his family were realized.

We mustn't forget that year by year over the centuries, the United States of America has moved by means of laws to overcome these prejudices of humans and the impersonal forces of society to create an opportunity and to create fairness.

We must lift our lamp by the golden door, but also keep the door and our hearts open.

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

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4089 deems all Federal land open for hunting and recreational shooting unless a closure is made by the head of the agency here in Washington. The authors of the legislation intended to exempt from the bill lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. I'm sure, I have it on good authority from them, from the authors, that this was their intention. However, as written, the bill only exempts national parks and national monuments. My amendment is a simple, technical correction that ensures all units of the National Park Service are included in the exemption.

The exemption language in title I is, I believe, unintentionally broad and not clear. The National Park System includes units that have a variety of designations--national seashores, national scenic trails, national battle fields, among others. The National Park System has units in urban areas, in rural areas, in suburban communities, in the East, in the West, in the center of our country.

And without this amendment, H.R. 4089 could potentially open for hunting the Paterson, New Jersey, Great Falls National Historic Park in the heart of Paterson, the third-largest city in my State. The bill could, as written, potentially allow hunting within Antietam or Manassas National Battlefields.

All units of the National Park System, like our national battlefields and military parks, are sacred ground and should be reserved for solemn contemplation of the sacrifices of our ancestors. My amendment would ensure

that the policies of the National Park Service involving firearms in areas controlled by the National Park Service stay in place.

Now, some have suggested that the historic battle reenactments constitute recreational shooting, and this, my amendment, would, they say, prevent reenacting on battlefields. Maybe my good friend from Utah doesn't know the National Park Service policy.

It's important to note that current National Park Service policy, right now, prohibits ``battle reenactments and demonstrations of battle tactics that involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines or any other form of simulated warfare.'' I'm not aware of any problems that this sensible policy has caused.

It's important to note that there are National Park System units like Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area in Washington State, I say to my friend, the chairman, or Craters of the Moon National Preserve in Idaho that allow hunting and recreational shooting. My amendment would not affect those policies. The hunting and recreational shooting could continue in those places.

I just want to emphasize, this is a technical amendment. I'm not getting at the merits for or against the bill overall. But should this bill proceed, it would be a big mistake to say that the hunting, the recreational shooting could take place in Gettysburg and Chincoteague and any number of other places that aren't intended.

Let's ensure that, in the hurry to open all Federal lands to hunting and recreational shooting, we don't carelessly open up to gunfire consecrated grounds like the Civil War battlefields, like the parks and beaches and forests of our national recreation areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this technical correction to the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the remaining time?

My amendment simply ensures that nothing in this act would force hunting in the National Park Service. I really don't understand what the chairman is talking about here, because where it is allowed, it would be allowed. Where it's not allowed, it would not be allowed. It is policy of the National Park Service not to allow reenactment of battles.

The battle reenactments and demonstrations of battle tactics that involve exchanges of fire between opposing lines, the taking of casualties, hand-to-hand combat, et cetera, are prohibited in all parks. Park Service employees can conduct demonstrations as part of their living history program. That's done now. It would be continued under this.

What this says is, under this legislation, were it to become law, a person who wants to hunt in Gettysburg Park can't do that unless the National Park Service policy allows it. That's all this says. It extends it to all facilities of the National Park Service, not just what was specified in the bill parks and monuments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend from Connecticut. I thank Mr. Becerra for his heartfelt and very moving remarks, and I thank Ms. Speier from California.

Look at this. Look at this map: 46 million Americans rely on SNAP. More than 9 million others rely on WIC, which is the Women, Infants, and Children food assistance. In New Jersey, my home State, more than 1 million residents rely on SNAP benefits to keep food on the tables. Then the budget, the Republican-Ryan budget, endorsed by Mitt Romney, would shred our social safety net while cutting taxes for the wealthy. It would cut food stamps, as these are generally known, by $133 billion over 10 years.

The authors of this or anyone who voted for it should walk a little bit in those shoes. I've walked in the shoes. More specifically, I've walked down the supermarket aisle with beneficiaries, with people who work in the food assistance programs, with food bank representatives. How does it go? Well, you can't buy that. No, you can't afford that. Oh, Mommy, can I have this? No. We're going to have to put that back on the shelf.

$31.50 a week. Nobody is doing this to have a little taste of luxury. Yet we have people come to the floor here in the House and say, before any of these millions of people get this assistance, they should have drug tests or means tests. I call them suspicion tests. Somehow they're trying to rip us off.

No, these are not welfare queens. Look, the average recipient is on these benefits for less than a year. More than half of them go to households where the income is below half the poverty line. The poverty line is low enough, but half of these recipients are at half that rate. Nearly 75 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children, and about half are working. These are working families who are trying to make it.

Is anybody who voted for this budget suggesting that the millionaires who might get an extra $100,000 on average submit to a drug test? submit to a means test? Are we suspicious of them? How about the executives of the oil companies who are getting billions of dollars of benefits in this? Are we going to subject them to drug tests or to means tests in order to show that they're deserving?

My friend from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) already mentioned the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. They wrote:

As pastors and teachers, we remind Congress that these--meaning the budget decisions--are economic, political and moral choices with human consequences.

Please, respectfully, they urge the rejection of any efforts to reduce funds or to restructure programs in ways that harm struggling families and people living in poverty.

I thank my colleague so much for shedding a bright light on this heartbreaking subject.

Mr. Chair, as I have said before, the federal budget is a moral document. It reflects, in dollars and cents, our national priorities. My priorities as a member of this body are supporting middle class families, helping to foster job creation, and promoting education, research and innovation that will help our economy grow over the long-term.

Unfortunately, for the second year in a row, the Republican budget resolution before us today fails to meet these goals and moves us in the wrong direction. At a time when economic inequality has risen to its highest level in decades, according to the Census Bureau, and after more than a decade of stagnant wages for middle-class Americans, we need a budget that strengthens our middle class, not weakens it.

And, once again, for the second year in a row, Republicans want to end the promise of Medicare to our seniors. Instead, seniors would receive a voucher to buy either private insurance or traditional Medicare--but what's so egregious about this proposal is that the voucher will fail to keep pace with projected health care costs over time. This budget puts insurance companies in charge of seniors' health. Our seniors would be forced to pay thousands more out of their own pockets on premiums for a plan that provides the same benefits seniors on Medicare are currently receiving. What if they don't have those extra thousands? In my home State of New Jersey, for example, the Republican budget will increase seniors out of pocket expenses by nearly $6,000. Moreover, this plan reopens the ``donut hole'' for seniors' prescription drug costs, by $2.2 billion this year and $44 billion by the end of the decade. More than 1 million New Jersey seniors will be forced to pay more for preventive services this year if this plan is enacted--services that are currently covered by Medicare, including mammograms, colonoscopies, and annual physicals.

This budget plan abandons investments in research and innovation-- exactly the kind of investment we need to grow and sustain our economy over the long-term. This budget plan is a direct assault on Medicaid-- it slashes $810 billion over 10 years. It turns Medicaid into a block grant and leaves it to already cash-strapped States to decide what to do next.

This budget plan cuts education funding on all levels--from pre-K through college--by $166 billion over the next decade. My home State of New Jersey, for example, will lose $8.4 million this year for Head Start--this will eliminate more than 1,000 enrollment slots for underserved children. Another 3,100 slots would be eliminated in Fiscal Year 2014. More than 20,000 New Jersey students would be negatively impacted by cuts to Title I. And for college-bound students, this plan freezes the maximum Pell Grant level and takes no action to prevent a doubling of interest rates on student loans starting this summer. We should be investing in education, not gutting it.

This budget cuts highway funding by 25 percent, weakening our ability to support our economic recovery and putting thousands of jobs at risk. This budget slashes food stamps by $133.5 billion over 10 years during a time when millions of Americans are still struggling to make ends meet.

While this budget all but dissolves the safety net, it maintains the costly tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. How can we justify billions of dollars in tax breaks to the ``Big 5'' oil companies--which made more than $1 trillion in profits over the past decade--while tens of millions of Americans are still looking for work?

Despite all of these cuts, this budget resolution still fails to balance the budget over the next decade.

Getting our Nation's fiscal house in order is a task my colleagues and I take seriously. Of course, we always should be looking to remove wasteful spending and ineffective programs. I have supported, and will continue to support, thoughtful budget cuts that reduce the deficit by eliminating unnecessary spending and costly tax giveaways to industries reaping enormous profits. At the same time, though, we must also preserve investments in infrastructure, science, and education, along with safety net programs that assist the most vulnerable among us in obtaining housing, health care, and food. The budget before us today fails to strike this essential balance.

There are better ways, and I will be supporting alternative approaches that take a more balanced approach to our Nation's fiscal challenges. They protect the most vulnerable members of our society while making the investments in research, education, and innovation that are absolutely critical to sustaining our economic recovery. These alternatives invest $50 billion to fund jobs that address our urgent transportation needs. They include $5 billion to help keep cops on the beat and firefighters on the job. They protect Social Security from privatization and promote tax relief for working families. They invest in research and development and science education. And, at the end of the day, these alternatives achieve a balanced budget in 10 years.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution and support one of these viable alternatives.

I thank my friend from California.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, which would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which I think is one of the good features of the health reform law.

I have real concerns about H.R. 5. We're talking about undoing work instead of doing the work that this Congress should do--repealing IPAB in the pretext of protecting Medicare just one day after the Republican budget was released that would end Medicare and shift the costs of health care to our seniors while giving tax breaks to millionaires. There's just no logic to this.

The bill would also make significant changes to the Federal health care liability system, making it difficult for legitimately injured patients to hold health care providers accountable, including even limiting the ability of victims of sexual abuse from getting justice from the institutions and providers who had harmed them.

The health reform law, which the Republicans want to repeal, included malpractice reforms, like grant programs for States. While I support improvements to the medical malpractice process, it's important to note that malpractice is not the primary--not even really a significant reason--for the escalating health care costs. States that have passed stringent limits on medical malpractice claims like the ones in H.R. 5 have in fact some of the most expensive health care in the country.

This bill is irresponsible and unnecessary. Where is the transportation bill? Where are the jobs bills? Why are we on the floor talking about undoing good work instead of doing the work that this Congress should be doing? This bill is irresponsible and unnecessary. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this political theater.

I am pleased to yield to my friend from California.

And I yield that to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of National School Breakfast Week which this year is March 5th through 9th. I thank the School Nutrition Association for their efforts to promote this important week and raise awareness for the need to ensure our school children have a healthy breakfast to start their days.

Research has shown that eating a nutritious, balanced breakfast helps kids focus and succeed in school. I believe that the federal government has an important role to play in

promoting nutrition, as well as preventing and treating obesity. And during these tough economic times, the school breakfast program also is seeing increasing demand from students who are coming to school hungry.

Currently, there are more than 31 million children who eat school meals five days a week, 180 days a year. While the National School Lunch and breakfast programs do a good job of feeding these children, they have the potential to provide fresher and healthier foods to millions of children in the United States.

In 2010 I helped write the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act to dramatically expand access for millions of children to healthy meals year-round in schools, and provide more meals for at risk children nationwide. The law included legislation that I introduced to provide $5 million in annual funding for Farm to School programs. Farm to School programs bring locally or regionally grown fresh produce into schools, significantly improving nutrition for children eating school lunches.

During School Breakfast Week, let us resolve to do everything we can to combat childhood hunger and also ensure that the food we are serving kids is as fresh and healthy as possible.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, all of us are saddened by the country's loss of Don Payne, and it is going to be hard to get used to the absence of Don.

Don has been a good friend to me, someone I've looked up to here in Congress.

No one in Congress has been a stronger advocate for equality of opportunity in education. No one in Congress has been a greater advocate for children services and youth development. No one has been more knowledgeable about Africa. No one has voted more consistently for peaceful and nonmilitary resolutions to problems. No one has been more consistent in the fight to respect workers' safety and workers' conditions.

Throughout all of this, Don Payne was very attentive to the interests of the entire State of New Jersey and especially to the interests of his constituents.

He was instrumental in bringing international attention and condemnation to the genocide in Darfur, as we've heard already.

As a former educator, he brought an invaluable perspective to our work together on the Education Committee. He was responsible for getting many millions of dollars to the PEPFAR program for dealing with HIV, resistant TB, malaria around the world, and especially in Africa. I might add he did that with President Bush.

He was a strong advocate for an adequate minimum wage. He was a key player in writing the College Cost Reduction and Access Act to cut interest rates for college loans, to increase Pell Grants, and to provide loan forgiveness to public service employees with student debt. It was a great pleasure and really a marvel to watch him on the Education and Labor Committee.

Don was, I think you would say, an unabashed liberal, recognizing that there are some things that we can do better together than separately. He was not a you're-on-your-own kind of guy. That was true in person too. He was very inclusive. He had good humor and dignity in everything he did. Don Payne was a good friend, a good Member of this House, and a great public servant.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family and his many friends, and I know his constituents will be hard pressed to find somebody to represent them as well as Don Payne.