Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the nutrition standards for school meals and in strong opposition to the waivers to those standards in this legislation that would result in schools providing nutritionally deficient meals.

Federal child nutrition programs help alleviate hunger and poor nutrition, and were it not for these programs, many students would not receive enough to eat. In New Jersey alone, my home State, the number of children who were eligible for free and reduced school meals increased by 22 percent in the past 5 years to a total that now exceeds half a million children.

According to a study from Harvard released earlier this year, because of the nutrition standards, children are eating more fruits and vegetables. These standards are working, and they are helping children receive better nutrition.

We knew a decade ago that almost half of school lunches were based on prepackaged foods high in calories and fat and salt. Many schools did not offer fruits and vegetables as part of their meals. Congress acted and raised the standards. Healthy children are the source of our country's well-being. The effects of these new standards last long after the children leave school.

At a time when one in three American children is overweight or obese, school nutrition standards can reduce the long-term health costs. And at a time when medical costs are growing ever higher, we should be thinking of ways to reduce health care costs, especially by encouraging more healthful living. We should support Mr. Farr's amendment when he brings it up that would retain, in this bill, the good nutritional standards.

Almost all schools are meeting the new standards now. The USDA has provided flexibility to schools to allow schools to successfully implement the standards, and that is reflected in the high adoption rate among schools across the Nation.

Through the Farm to School Program that I helped write in the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, Hopewell Elementary School, for example, in my district is providing more local produce on their menu. This is helping the kids learn about healthy eating, learn where our food comes from-- not a package or a box, but from the ground and from farmers. We should give them the best nutrition.

Congress should continue to ensure that schools have the resources to meet the standards, not to lower the standards or exempt schools from them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the State of New Jersey, which is celebrating her 350th anniversary this year.

Tomorrow, I will introduce in the House a resolution with all the members of the New Jersey House delegation commemorating our State's rich heritage and this 350th anniversary milestone. It is my understanding that Senator Menendez will be introducing a similar resolution.

Since its founding in the year 1664, New Jersey has played an instrumental role in the establishment of our country, serving as the location of more military engagements than any other colony and becoming the first State to ratify the Bill of Rights.

New Jersey authors and artists have forever enhanced our country's cultural landscape. Of course, the charm of our State's physical landscape and shoreline cannot be overstated.

New Jersey has long served as a cauldron of innovation, supporting leading scientists and innovators in the development of groundbreaking technologies and medicines.

I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating New Jersey's history of innovation, liberty, and diversity this year and every year.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Speaker Boehner said he was not qualified to debate the science of climate change, but he was confident that all plans to deal with climate change would hurt jobs and our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am a scientist, but that doesn't uniquely qualify me to debate climate change. As Members of Congress, we rely on the expertise of others to inform our decisionmaking.

And I agree with the overwhelming consensus among scientists: the climate is changing largely as a result of human activities, and we can and must act now--not because I am, myself, a scientist, but because of peer-reviewed reports, like the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment.

Less than a year ago, in a speech announcing his Climate Action Plan, President Obama said that he would direct ``the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution.'' This coming Monday, the President will make good on his promise when the EPA proposes the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants, which are responsible for about 40 percent of U.S. carbon pollution.

We, as a country, have already been forced to endure the costs of unlimited carbon pollution as more frequent and intense extremes continue to cost us in lives and dollars. While the draft carbon pollution rules have yet to be released, of this I am sure: no matter the perceived cost of action, the costs of inaction will be far greater.

Mr. Speaker, over the past two years, Plainfield, New Jersey Public Schools has saved nearly $1.2 million in energy costs. That is 26 percent of the school district's utilities budget over the same time span. These savings are the result of a district-wide, behavioral-based energy savings program. With the help of Plainfield School's energy specialist, Michael Pate, Plainfield School District achieved these savings by encouraging changes in behavior, like turning off lights and computers, and improving maintenance practices, like ensuring the right amount of Freon is used in HVAC systems.

The use of data helped drive this successful initiative. The school district can break down energy consumption of each appliance to the hour and, therefore, derive a cost per hour for each device. As a result, individuals know exactly the size of their energy footprint and how much money can be saved district-wide. Most important, teachers and administrators know that these savings can be redirected into funding classroom supplies and increasing educational services.

Imagine if all school districts in America trimmed their energy expenditures by 26 percent and then reinvested that savings in decreasing class sizes, updating technology, providing science equipment, hiring nurses, psychologists, and special education teachers, creating after-school activities, and organizing events and services that make their public schools the cornerstone of the community. We must give all students the opportunity to obtain a quality education and increase our children's academic competitiveness with their international peers. The $1.2 million savings Plainfield Public Schools achieved is the reason why I introduced the School Building Enhancement Act (H.R. 115), which would provide grants to states to assist educational agencies in implementing energy-saving practices. As demonstrated by Plainfield, the savings will be significantly higher than the costs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Chair, I should point out, first of all, that as a percentage of our economy, the Federal Government's support for scientific research is half of what it was back when I was in college many decades ago. The point is that we are not keeping up.

Part of the problem is, here in this Chamber and around the country, people value the fruits of research, but they don't have a clue about how it is done. We see here, on the floor, people ridiculing research because of the title.

A prominent politician recently ridiculed NSF-funded research in fruit flies or game theory. Obviously, she didn't understand that one of the principal biological organisms that has been studied is Drosophila, which is the so-called fruit fly.

Social and behavioral research is important in understanding how people make decisions about energy use or about how to invest or about disaster response. It tells us a great deal about brain processes; so, in pointing out NSF studies to ridicule because they sound foolish, we here--we policymakers--can look like the fools.

I am a physicist by background, so I am pleased to hear the chairman talk about research in physics and chemistry and math, but we also need studies, based on evidence, as NSF studies are, on human behavior. Let's look at library science.

It would be easy to ridicule a study that I saw described not long ago in library science, which was funded by the National Science Foundation. It just so happens that it turned out to be the basis for what we now know as Google.

Yes, that research was done with taxpayer money, and it could have been ridiculed as foolish, as a waste of taxpayer money, but I think the country's economy has benefited, maybe several thousand times over--maybe many thousands of times over--the amount that was spent on that foolish research on library science.

We should be asking, through NSF studies, why humans engage in unhealthy behavior. We could learn a lot about applicable public health programs through such things.

This idea of cutting back on funding in the taxpayers' interest is terribly misguided. As a country, we are greatly underinvesting in research. I thank the gentleman for standing up for NSF research.

I thank the gentleman. I certainly appreciate the very admirable Chairman Wolf and my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for the work they have put into crafting this bill.

Madam Chair, however, I do have some serious concerns, especially as regards the cuts that are being made to NOAA's climate research programs. This bill cuts NOAA's climate research for the next fiscal year by $38 million below the current year, or $69 million below the President's request.

Now, deeper droughts, heavier rains, more flooding, superstorms, tornadoes,

rising seas, huge storm surges are all getting worse. Would we not want to understand what is going on?

I will be offering an amendment later this evening to restore funding for critical NOAA climate research programs. NOAA climate research programs support ocean and atmospheric research, global data collection and sharing so we can understand climate change.

This year, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. National Climate Assessment were released. They agreed. They come to the same conclusion: the climate is changing. Greenhouse gases by human activities are the principal cause. We have already begun to experience the effects, which will continue to be costly in lives and dollars.

Those who would deny these changes, some here in this very House, can't stop the changes from occurring. Denying funding for the research won't stop the changes. It will just leave us ignorant and less prepared. We need to support the science behind climate change.

Now, since we are talking about science, it is true, ostriches don't actually bury their heads in the sand, but it is a metaphor for what is going on here. We should not bury our heads in the sand. We should be supporting this research vigorously because of all the ways that the climate change will affect our lives and our well-being both around the world and here in the United States.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today as a member of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Caucus. This coalition of Members has formed in order to advance policies to promote clean energy; protect our land, air, and water; and to address one of the dominant issues of our time: human-induced global climate change.

I am joined in this amendment tonight by Representatives Moran, Peters of California, Polis, Lowenthal, Connolly, Hastings of Florida, Huffman, Tonko, and Cartwright, and we rise because, unfortunately, this bill fails to make the critical investments that are needed to further our understanding of the atmospheric changes that we know are affecting our planet.

This bill we are debating here tonight would cut NOAA climate research for the next fiscal year by $37.5 million dollars below the current year or $69 million below what the President is asking for.

NOAA climate research funds atmospheric and oceanic research, climate research laboratories, cooperative institutes, regional climate data and information, competitive climate research global data collection and sharing.

As the climate changes, we will continue to experience deeper droughts, more intense wildfires, more frequent storms and floods, superstorms like Hurricane Sandy, higher sea levels, bigger storm surges. Would we not want to understand what is going on?

It is ironic that, as Members here tonight are trying to outdo each other in supporting weather research, they propose to cut climate research. I suppose, when we come to NIH, they will be tripping over themselves to talk about research in symptoms, but ban any study of the causes of the disease.

Now, earlier this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released their fifth assessment report, and earlier this month, the Federal Government released the U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Both reports, which were the product of years and years of research, the combined efforts of literally thousands of scientists spanning the globe, came to the same conclusions: the climate is changing.

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are the principal cause, and the result is costly, in lives and dollars--yes, deadly.

Just about a year ago, we passed a landmark in human history, 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air worldwide. Now, I say in human history because, indeed, it is human activity, the way we produce and use energy, that is primarily responsible for this large increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide.

It is of historic importance because, as scientists have made clear, this great concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is changing our very climate.

Now, we know some Members, even in this Chamber, have their doubts about manmade climate change--the human-induced climate change. They say: maybe the climate is changing and humans aren't to blame; or maybe humans are changing the climate, but it is really not as bad as the alarmists say.

Still, others outright deny the science, reject the calls for action by scientists. Why this denial?

It wouldn't happen in other instances. If a firefighter bangs on your door to tell you that your house is on fire, would you look at this stranger dressed in fireproof clothing and wearing a helmet and an oxygen tank and say, I don't believe you? Or would you get out?

Why, then, when thousands of the world's best scientists are telling us that humans are dangerously changing the planet's climate, that your house, planet Earth, is in deep trouble, wouldn't we get moving? This is not a joke. It is not a hoax. It is not a false alarm.

This bill would cut critical investments that are needed for ongoing climate research, and failing to provide the resources necessary to study our changing climate won't make the problem go away; it will just make it harder to predict and more difficult to understand. Denial is the result of ignorance and only deepens our ignorance.

We need to support the science behind climate change. We need to develop policies that would help us mitigate and adapt to the threats of climate change.

I yield back the balance of my time

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

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from our colleague from Oregon.

There has been a lot of talk tonight on both sides of the aisle about science. The point of science research is to teach us things that we don't already know. In fact, it was just a few years ago that science research showed something that we should have known but didn't, which was that our oceans were becoming acidic, that our oceans were becoming acidic to the point of damaging fisheries, damaging coral reefs, and damaging many of the things that we value and should value in this world of ours.

This is an important amendment, and although I understand that the gentlelady intends to withdraw it, I do hope that the chair will find some way to address her point as this bill goes through the legislative process, as I also hope the chair will find some way to address the point of my earlier amendment about NOAA climate research.

With that, expressing strong support for this amendment, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 12: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, sex trafficking is one of the most appalling crimes of our time. It is a modern day form of slavery, and deserves our attention and resources so we can put an end to this hideous practice. This is why I support the intent of H.R. 4225, the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act of 2014. This bill targets the facilitators of sex trafficking by prohibiting anyone from benefiting financially from or distributing advertising that offers a commercial sex act in a manner that violates federal criminal code prohibitions against sex trafficking of children.

However, I could not support this bill because it adds these activities to a list of current crimes for which mandatory minimums jail sentences are required. Simply put, mandatory minimum penalties do not work. They discount factors in crimes, prevent judges from meting out punishments that are tailored to the criminal, and have been proven discriminatory to people of color.

Mandatory minimum sentences make legislators feel good, but have wrought terrible injustices in certain cases. They have been demonstrably shown not to reduce crime rates. Even the Judicial Conference, the group that represents federal judges, has said that mandatory minimums violate common sense.

For this reason, I cannot support H.R. 4225--however well intended-- because it prescribes mandatory jail sentences.

Mr. Speaker, our veterans have served our Nation with pride and honor since our country was founded over 200 years ago, and we owe them and their families a debt that we can never fully repay.

One of the things we can do, however, is ensure that veterans receive the benefits they have earned, and providing high-quality health care must be our foremost priority. If a person is ill, his or her entire quality of life is affected.

The revelations we have learned about the gross negligence at the Phoenix hospital are shocking and deplorable and should be condemned-- and should never happen again. But H.R. 4031 does not get to the root of the matter and it does not fix the issue.

Clearly there are serious problems at the VA that must be addressed, and those that allowed this travesty must be held accountable.

However, this bill does not address this problem.

This bill would allow Senior Executive Service employees to be fired without cause--for absolutely no reason, including political reasons. Under current law, Senior Executive Service employees can already be fired for poor performance. An SES employee must, not can, but must be removed should they receive even one unsatisfactory rating.

I strongly support holding all federal employees accountable for the job they are hired to do, no matter what position they hold in government. The American people must have faith in their government. While an investigation of the problems at the Phoenix VA is ongoing, the negligence and indifference is inexcusable We must get to the bottom of what happened, and make sure it, or anything like it, never happens again.

We should be looking for answers, not using time and energy on this bill, and instead focus on the real problem of why these horrendous actions were allowed to occur.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the work that Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Scott, and others have put into this, but the bill before us still falls woefully short of what is required to correct the abuses brought to light over the last year.

This legislation still allows the government to collect everything they want against Americans--to treat Americans as suspects first and

citizens second. It still allows decisions about whom to target, and how aggressively to go after acquaintances of acquaintances of targets, to be made by mid-level intelligence community employees, not federal judges. This so-called ``two-hops'' surveillance casts a very wide net that can reach millions of people.

Most important, the fundamental decisions made under the authorities provided in this bill will be made using a weak, inferior standard that does not reach the probable cause standard. In other words, the government can spy on people based on weak suspicions and not on legally established probable cause.

Now, my friends say, ``Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' The perfect? How could anyone here vote for legislation that doesn't uphold the constitutional standard of probable cause?

Probable cause has been well established in law for two centuries to keep Americans secure by keeping intelligence and enforcement officers focused on real threats, not on vague suspicions or wild-goose chases. Indeed, the debate over adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was about raising the standard for the government's legal interaction with its citizens, not lowering it as we are now. That standard for the behavior of intelligence and law enforcement officers is not archaic. The power of the government to oppress individuals based on false suspicions is not less, but greater, than when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

The bill also fails to deal with some of the most important abuses revealed over the last year. It provides no protection for national security whistleblowers, whose revelations over the last decade are the only reason why we are finally having such a public debate on this issue. The secrecy of the Intelligence Community is so complete that Congress will never be able to have meaningful oversight without whistleblowers from within the community, and rarely will they speak up without some protection against firing or worse. And human nature has not changed. The propensity for investigators to let their suspicions get the better of them is as great as it ever was--even well intentioned investigators.

The bill also allows the government to continue surreptitiously to compromise encryption and privacy technology built into American electronics and software products, putting at direct risk America's hi- tech business sector and the jobs it provides.

A decade ago there was a major change in the relationship between Americans and their government. This bill does not correct it. Members should reject this badly flawed bill and the House leadership should allow an open debate on a real surveillance reform bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I recognize the work that Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Scott, and others have put into this, but it still falls woefully short.

This legislation still allows the government to collect everything they want against Americans, to treat Americans as suspects first and citizens second.

It still allows decisions about whom to target and how aggressively to go after acquaintances of acquaintances of targets, to be made by mid-level employees, not Federal judges.

Most important, the fundamental decisions under this will be made against a weak, inferior standard that does not reach probable cause, so that the government can spy on people based on weak suspicions and not on legally established probable cause. Now, my friends say: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The perfect? How can anyone here vote for legislation that doesn't uphold the constitutional standard of probable cause? Probable cause has been well-established in law for two centuries, to keep Americans secure by keeping intelligence and enforcement officers focused on real threats, not on vague suspicions or wild-goose chases.

A decade ago, there was a major change in the relationship between Americans and their government. This bill does not correct it.

Will the gentleman yield?

Is it not correct that this bill does not invoke the probable cause standard?

Will the gentleman yield further?

Is there any American who doesn't think that this is a search, when it comes to gathering, by any common understanding?

Mr. Speaker, I missed the following votes on May 21, 2014: on rollcall vote 223, a motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``no;'' on rollcall vote 224, a motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``no;'' on rollcall vote 225, on agreeing to the Blumenauer Amendment to H.R. 4435, I would have voted ``yes;'' on rollcall vote 226, on agreeing to the Loretta Sanchez Amendment Number 3 to H.R. 4435, I would have voted ``yes;'' on rollcall vote 227, on agreeing to the Daines Amendment, I would have voted ``no;'' on rollcall vote 228, on passage of H. Res. 590, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 1189, a bill originally introduced by Representative Markey of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career and accomplishments of Mayor Peter A. Cantu, who has served with distinction as a member of the governing body of Plainsboro, New Jersey for the past 40 years and has been a leader in municipal governance for the entire state of New Jersey.

Peter Cantu was a teenager when his family relocated to Plainsboro over 50 years ago. At

the time, the small farming community in central New Jersey was renowned for its agricultural produce and for the Walker-Gordon dairy, home of the famous Elsie, the Borden Cow. Peter met the love of his life, Gale Thompson, in high school and they were married and settled down in the neighboring community of Princeton where their two children, Peter and Patricia were born.

The Cantus moved back to Plainsboro and Peter, who was then beginning a long career with the IBM Corporation, became involved in the Township, as a member of the Volunteer Fire Company, Lions Club and several other organizations as well as serving on the Town Council, an advisory body to the Township Committee.

In the 1970's, some of the farms became available for development, and the town government approved thousands of housing units without any master plan or overall growth management plan. Outraged by this lack of vision, Peter Cantu decided to run for local office. He won, and the rest is history, a history he helped write.

And it is a different history than it could have been without Peter Cantu. Under his leadership over the past 40 years, Plainsboro today is a thriving, diverse community of over 22,000, honored for its planning and smart growth and for having 50 percent of the township land permanently dedicated as open space, parks, and nature preserves, a notable feature for a town in the most densely populated state in America. It has a variety of housing options--rental apartments, condominiums, and private houses for those with low and moderate incomes and higher. It is home to the University Medical Center of Princeton at Plainsboro, the national headquarters of one of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies, and other corporations and businesses. When the town developed a new town center, Mayor Cantu and the planners put at its center not a shopping mall or an office park, but a modern, active public library. Is it any wonder that New Jersey Monthly Magazine recognized Plainsboro as ``One of the Ten Best Places to Live in New Jersey''.

Mayor Peter Cantu would never claim that Plainsboro's success was all his doing. He would say that without the input and hard work of all the members of the Township Committee and the support of the residents of Plainsboro, this would not have happened. And I would agree. But it is his style of leadership that has made this happen. Peter Cantu is a patient builder of consensus. He listens attentively to other points of view and takes the time to explain the rationale for decisions. Public hearings are open and neighborhoods are kept aware of what is planned.

And perhaps the best indicator of his talent to lead can be found in his ability to remain Mayor for so many years. Plainsboro's Township form of government calls for an election of some members each year, who select which one will be Mayor for a year each January. Peter's fellow Township Committee members have chosen him to be Mayor 34 times.

Peter Cantu's long career in local government is an inspiration to those who follow. I ask that you join me in recognizing his significant contributions to the well-being of his community and state, and thank him for his lifetime of service.