Bill Foster

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice support for the dedicated public servants who make this country great. President Trump campaigned on a promise to drain the swamp, and instead he nominated unqualified Wall Street executives and career politicians for Cabinet and senior-level positions, leaving the next level of appointments almost entirely unfilled, all while threatening to cut the experienced Federal workforce who make our government work well every day. As the only Ph.D. physicist in Congress, I know that many of these Federal workers and their support staff are scientists who work every day to advance innovation and improve our standard of living. The Department of Energy, for example, relies on scientists with technical expertise to run our national labs. The success of their work depends on long-term sustained funding and a continuity of competent leadership to make their new ideas a reality. But our President's skinny budget would destroy scientific funding and force us to give up our place as a leader in innovation, and many of his appointments are insulting jokes. So last weekend I joined the March for Science because it is clear that this administration does not value science and scientific enterprise. I call on my colleagues here today to support scientists and Federal workers. And if a swamp needs to be drained, the place to start is Mar- a-Lago.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators Act of 2017. This bill will increase the number of accredited investors who can invest in an angel or venture fund before requiring the fund to register as an investment company. This will encourage capital formation in one of the major types of funds that seed startups and helps bring new ideas to market. Innovation and invention are integral to economic growth, but new ideas are only the first step in the type of businesses that can grow the economic pie. It is crucial that these companies have access to capital to grow and to bring the product to market. Competition from startups, bolstered by access to funding, creates jobs and forces incumbent firms to stay aggressive in their own research and development. H.R. 1219 is exactly the type of bipartisan legislation that Congress should be considering to facilitate capital formation. This bill will make it easier to form a fund made up of sophisticated investors who can assess and bear the risks that come with investing in startups. These funds are capped at $10 million in paid-in and callable capital. This means the funds will largely be engaged in angel investing that helps early-stage investors build a better mousetrap. These funds can often be cheaper for the company and can be structured as equity debt or a combination of both. A fund like this can bring expertise and connections that increase the likelihood of success for the inventor. It can also spread the risk and rewards for investors because it is important to note that not every invention will turn into the next big thing. We need a startup ecosystem that encourages the testing of new ideas and products with a wide range of risks and rewards. This bill is a targeted measure to help create that ecosystem by enhancing the ability of early-stage companies to get funding. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill today.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding and for leading this important conversation. We come here today to call attention to a misguided turn that this administration proposes to take in our country's cultural history. I am the only Ph.D physicist in Congress, so I frequently come to the floor to speak out in defense of science and scientific research, but I am here today for another reason, to call attention to the grave threat that President Trump's budget poses to the future of our country's arts and culture. What is it that makes a country great; and how will our country be viewed a generation from now, a century from now, or in the next millennia? To answer this question, we can only look to the great nations of the past. Why was Athens great in a way that Sparta never was? Why is Florence, under the Medici, revered and remembered in a way that its forgotten competitors never are? It is because, after they defended their homeland, after they conquered their rivals in war, after they triumphed in commerce, those countries invested a significant fraction of their national wealth in things that had nothing to do with material conquest. The Medici supported the science and the art of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and the Renaissance masters; and Athens supported the immortal accomplishments of the Greek storytellers, historians, artists, and philosophers, and that is what made them great. For many decades, our country has supported the arts and humanities through the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. Now our President has proposed a budget that would cut these Endowments completely in favor of more defense spending and a useless wall on our southern border. The National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities provide critical funding for students and organizations throughout the country, including in my district in Illinois. His budget proposes that we wipe them away completely. These cuts might make the President feel like a hero in the short term, but they will be a disaster for our country's place in human history. Programs that support understanding of the arts and humanities play a vital role in our society. They give us knowledge and a shared cultural base that we rely on every day, regardless of what career we go into. And they also help children and students of all ages embrace the complexity and the wonder of humanity. History, literature, and the arts connect us to a common past and allow us to explore our differences and to understand places beyond our own imaginations. Simply put, the arts and humanities teach us how to be compassionate and understanding toward other people. This is what makes America truly great. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities help show us what it means to be human because, regardless of who you are and what you do, knowledge, empathy, and compassion are the national values and the human values that we need to defend, not with bombs and fighter jets, but with sustained support and the cultivation of knowledge and culture. Now, for most of my career in science, I worked at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. The founding director of Fermilab, Robert Wilson, spoke eloquently about this over 40 years ago. Bob was a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project and who walked away from his security clearance and dedicated his life to pure science, to building giant accelerators, experiments, international collaborations at Fermilab to explore the fundamental properties of matter. He was also an artist who, after he made all of the magnets and particle accelerators, then filled his laboratory with graceful and imaginative art. In 1969, he was called to testify in front of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy to answer why it was that we were spending all of this money at Fermilab during the Cold War and what all this had to do with the national defense. Robert Wilson looked the committee in the eye and said that all of the work at Fermilab, driven by natural human curiosity, has nothing at all to do with the national defense except, perhaps, to make our country more worth defending. So I would hope that a President so bent on building his wall and increasing our defense budget by over $50 billion, to the detriment of funding for education, science, and the arts, would pause for a moment and heed those words from history so that a century from now, when our children and grandchildren look back on this time in our country's history, they will see that the human values of our country were always what made it more worth defending, in part, because of the greatness that the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities have sustained for decades. So I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for this important discussion.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. This amendment is a commonsense and logical addition to this bill. It will help ensure that members of the EPA's Science Advisory Board will act in the best interests of the American people and our environment. I think that we can all agree that, now more than ever, we need integrity in government. And this amendment would simply prohibit any member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board from being employed by any entity, corporate or otherwise, which has interests before the Board. This prohibition would be in place during the member's time on the Board and would extend for 3 years after they leave the Board. My Republican colleagues have taken up this bill with the stated intent of protecting the scientific integrity of the EPA, and this amendment will go a long way to making sure that they keep their word. The underlying bill also includes a similar prohibition on board members applying for a grant or contract from the EPA during their service or for 3 years after. And as the chairman just said, there is nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off period. However, the authors of this bill are apparently concerned that members of the Board would be tempted to favor environmental concerns in the hopes of getting an EPA grant. Therefore, it also stands to reason that they should worry equally about a board member tilting the scales in favor of a specific industry in return for future financial compensation or career advancement, the classic revolving door problem. So what this motion to recommit does is something that I think we all should be able to agree is a good thing. We have seen too many people in the President's Cabinet who appear to have connections too close to the big interests they regulate rather than the interests of the American people. This amendment would ensure that no one can unduly personally profit from their time at the EPA, and that members are there to represent the interests of the American people and our environment rather than their own self interests. Finally, I would like to close by bringing up a more general question of why we seem to be having variations on this repetitive theme of whether or not we can pollute our way out of the structural and economic challenges that our country faces. Mr. Speaker, you and your party have been very successful at selling yourselves and your supporters on the idea that if we can just, once again, dump unlimited pollutants into our rivers and streams, into our groundwater, our food, air, lungs, our bloodstreams and those of our children, then everything will be great again in America. This week, we saw our President surrounded by earnest and hopeful young coal miners as he gutted environmental regulations and promised them that all their jobs were coming back. And then we have seen interviews on TV with desperate families in Appalachia using up their life savings to pay for training for underground coal jobs that they have been told will be coming back now that Donald Trump is President. Then we have seen interviews with coal executives quietly pointing out that those jobs will not come back; that it was machines and fundamental economic forces that took those jobs in coal country. The story is the same in oil country, where even as oil production has rebounded, the jobs and wages have not come back because of automation, the same way that machines took the jobs in rural America, manufacturing America, and increasingly middle class, white-collar America. So until we realize that we are all in this together and that a fundamental restructuring of our economy is needed rather than a mindless retraction of the protections on environmental quality on the land that we will pass on to our children, then I am afraid that we are destined to repeat this infinite loop of marginally productive debate. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. FOSTER. I am opposed.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, for 7 years, Republicans have been making promises about their secret healthcare plan. They said that under their plan, nobody would have to carry health insurance if they did not want to; and then when they got sick, they could demand their health insurance with no exclusions for preexisting conditions, no limits on coverage for expensive diseases, and that their coverage would be better and cheaper than ObamaCare for all Americans. While they made these questionable promises, the Affordable Care Act provided more than 20 million Americans with lifesaving health care. And now, after 7 years, Republicans have finally revealed their secret plan. We now see that virtually all their promises were lies. Their plan will rapidly bankrupt Medicare, and those over 50 will see massive cost increases, and millions will lose their health care. They did keep one promise, though. Massive new tax cuts for the wealthy. For that, millions of American families will pay a terrible price.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 41 and in support of the SEC rule requiring resource extraction companies to disclose payments to governments. Historically, payment for resources is a huge source of corruption in developing countries, which, for most of us, is morally abhorrent; but what I want to talk about is the competitive advantage that we gain when we embrace the principles of the democratic rule of law, transparency, and morality that our financial system depends upon. We passed Dodd-Frank to strengthen our financial system in a time of crisis but also to make it more transparent and effective for American consumers and investors. Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank directed the SEC to publish a rule requiring issuers to disclose the types and amounts of payments for each project and to each government annually. The provision improved disclosures made to financial regulators and to investors. Private and public institutional investors--representing trillions of dollars invested on behalf of American families--voiced support to the SEC in favor of the rule. There are two main reasons for this support from institutional investors: First, all investors want to be able to review payments to all governments, to assess the exposure the issuer may have to corruption risk. The SEC has jurisdiction over compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and investors need to know whether fines for potentially corrupt payments could be levied against firms in which they are considering investing. Investors should always have the right to know material information about the firms, and systemic noncompliance with the law is always material. It should not take an event of noncompliance that has been uncovered by the regulators to inform investors when simple transparency requirements, like the annual reporting of payments, can alert them to the risk. Secondly, some investors may simply want to stay away from investments in firms that make payments to certain governments. Many resource-rich nations in the developing world lack a democratic rule of law and are often governed by oppressive regimes that exploit their land and environment, extracting resources for their rulers' financial gain at the expense of their citizens. Investors have the right to know this information because they own the company and may feel a moral responsibility for its action. For these two reasons, extractive payments are information crucial to an investor's analysis of an issuer's securities. The United States equity markets are the most efficient in the world because we have strong disclosure laws and strong enforcement at the SEC. The disclosure of payments made to foreign governments is a relevant factor in valuing securities and is crucial to avoiding asymmetries in information, which can and will be exploited. These disclosures actually enable the market to police an issuer by punishing excessive payments to questionable governments with a devaluation of its equities. In short, there are three market-based reasons to disclose payments to foreign governments: First, these disclosures promote market integrity; second, they provide investors with crucial information for valuing securities; third, they enable investors to make ethical values-based decisions on where they allocate their resources--a right that we should be enhancing rather than eroding. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 41.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh's tenth annual ``Health for Humanity Yogathon'' or ``Surya Namaskar Yajna.'' Surya Namaskar integrates simple yoga postures in 10-steps that, along with teaching easy breathing techniques, can provide immense health benefits to both the body and the mind. Each year, Hindus worldwide celebrate January 14th as Makar Sankranti--a day that marks the change of season as the sun enters the sign of Capricorn or Makar. To mark this occasion, Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh has organized the ``Yoga for Health, Health for Humanity'' Yogathon from January 14, 2017-January 29, 2017. The 16-day event will raise awareness about yoga and its advantages in achieving a healthy body, mind, and spirit. Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh is a voluntary, non-profit, social and cultural organization, which aims at preserving and passing on the Hindu heritage and cultural values to the next generation of Hindus and raise awareness around the world. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 10th annual Health for Humanity Yogathon.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, this weekend we saw millions of Americans march in cities and towns across the country and around the world--far more than attended the inauguration the day before. I joined the march in Chicago, where one of the most visible concerns was women's reproductive freedom. Today, House Republicans, roughly 90 percent of them White males, responded by showing the women of America exactly how little they respect those rights. Madam Speaker, a party that lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes does not have a mandate to deny women the right to make their own healthcare decisions. Perhaps I should remind my Republican colleagues that unless you are their doctor, they don't need your opinion. Women in the Federal workforce, low-income women, women in the military, women employed by small businesses are all perfectly capable of having a conversation with their doctor about their health. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill and ``no'' to disrespecting the women of America.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. I thank Ranking Member Waters for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6392, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2016. Although many aspects of this bill have sound arguments behind them, it contains fatal flaws which should preclude our support. The financial crisis taught us many things about our markets and overturned some fairly fundamental assumptions that were widely held prior to it. One of the things we learned was the extent to which systemic risk could build up in a regulatory paradigm that was focused entirely on entity risk. It was quickly evident that the failure of a large institution posed a greater threat than previously believed. At the same time the phrase ``too big to fail'' became public shorthand for some of these firms, economists and other experts talked about another important aspect, too interconnected to fail. Asset size is a quick and useful metric for determining whether a firm is potentially so large that a failure could have a massive impact on systemwide stability, and evaluating the risks that single institutions can pose to the system often require a more nuanced approach. The exposure of counterparties to a failing firm or exposures of other institutions to the same risks are systemic risk factors that should rightly be considered. Also, as the economy grows, many fixed thresholds, such as $50 billion, will shrink in importance. At the very least, the importance given to any asset size threshold needs to be periodically reconsidered in the scope of an economic indicator like GDP. Wherever the line is drawn, it should reflect the macroeconomic factors that the bank is nested in. Moreover, there is anecdotal evidence that firms will avoid growth-- meaning, cutting back in lending--as they approach any fixed threshold. I see this as a market distortion that reflects risks of increasing concentration rather than prudent risk management. I see this concern with nearly any fixed threshold for being deemed a SIFI. However, I think that a nuanced, weighted process that gives deference to the expertise of regulatory agencies is appropriate. Drawing lines to determine which firms warrant additional scrutiny will always be a difficult process. To the extent that the bill we consider today looks to other factors that a strong Financial Stability Oversight Council with adequate resources and leadership should consider, I believe that this is a good start. I do think that there are improvements to be made in the designation threshold, but I think this bill has two core problems that prevent my support. First, legislation to change the threshold should give sufficient specific direction that it would not move with changes to the political leadership of the FSOC. The concentration of an effective veto power in the hands of a single political appointee basically aggravates that concern tremendously.

Mr. FOSTER. Second, thorough analysis of the institutions presently categorized as SIFIs but not G-SIBs requires more than a year. The bill today rightly looks to characteristics that are important in assessing systemic risk, but it does not provide predictability or an adequate transition period. The most recent financial crisis saw the failure of institutions of a variety of sizes, but, for example, the savings and loan crisis was the simultaneous failure of many smaller firms. I support an approach that looks at many different factors and gives discretion to a strong, well-resourced FSOC to designate forms based on objective characteristics of the firm so we can prevent another crisis. However, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6392 because it does not set up the thoughtful framework we need.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am Congressman Bill Foster, and I am proud to represent the 11th District of Illinois. In our district, we have vibrant immigrant communities from all over the world. I have met many DREAMers, both at home in Illinois and right here in the Halls of Congress. For many of them, the United States is the only country that they have ever called home. Our district includes the diverse cities of Aurora, Bolingbrook, Joliet, and others. In Aurora, the East Aurora High School District 131 has one of the largest Naval Junior ROTCs in the world. Many of these young ROTC students come from immigrant families, and they dream one day of serving our country in the Armed Forces. You can see it in their faces during flag ceremonies, parades, and you can see the admiration of the younger children looking up to these ROTC DREAMers. Many of them are here because their parents dreamed of a better life for their children. The DACA program has been incredibly successful. Over half a million young people are currently enrolled in it. They are living examples of the American Dream, the idea that anyone could come here and have a fulfilling and prosperous life regardless of where you come from and where you live. Instead of creating new opportunities for these great young people, Republicans in Congress have repeatedly voted to end the DACA program. We need to reform our outdated immigration laws and not double down on a broken system. As their Representatives, we should honor their patriotism and dedication to our country with support, not fear and degradation. It is a pretty simple proposition.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in strong support of S. 1555, legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal collectively to the Filipino Veterans of World War II in recognition of their service and sacrifice and their role in defeating the Imperial Japanese Army. While we are taking up the Senate-passed version of the Filipino Veterans of World War II Congressional Medal Act today, I want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Representative Tulsi Gabbard, who has led the effort to move this same legislation across the finish line here in the House. Since introducing the legislation, Representative Gabbard has garnered the support of more than 300 House cosponsors, and I am proud to be among them. In 1934, the United States began a 10-year period of bringing its colonial rule to an end. During that time, the U.S. retained control over Philippine foreign policy and maintained the right to call Filipinos into the service of the United States Armed Forces. As tensions with Japan began to rise in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt invoked his authority to call all organized military forces of the Government of the Philippines into the service of the United States. Responding to his call to arms, more than 200,000 Filipinos fought on behalf of the U.S. as part of the United States Armed Forces in the Far East. The force included the Philippine Scouts, the Philippine Commonwealth Army, the new Philippine Scouts, Filipino civilians who served on a voluntary basis, and the Guerrilla Services who fought behind enemy lines throughout the war. Over the course of the war, an estimated 57,000 Filipinos in uniform perished, and many more Filipino civilian lives were lost. Despite this loyalty and tremendous sacrifice, and the U.S. commitment to provide Filipinos who served as part of the Allied struggle with full veterans benefits, this promise was shamefully withdrawn by the Rescission Act of 1946 at the close of the war. While a number of benefits have since been made available to the Filipino veterans, we must continue to work to ensure that those who risked their lives to defend the United States and the free world are provided with the full benefits, honor, and respect that they deserve. This legislation has the support of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, the National Federation of Filipino American Associations, and many other distinguished organizations. I urge Members to pass this legislation, which takes a modest but welcome step to recognize the contributions of Filipino veterans of World War II. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard), the lead sponsor of the House version of this bill.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and chair emeritus of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2992, legislation to honor the dedicated and unwavering service provided by the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II, a bill that I am proud to cosponsor. I hope that, upon its passage in the House, the Senate will move quickly to take it up and pass this bill before the 114th Congress adjourns. While many are familiar with the sacrifices made by those who served in the Armed Forces during World War II, less often do we stop and take time to recognize the members of the U.S. Merchant Marine who played an essential role in supplying our troops overseas with the equipment, food, and materials necessary to sustain the fight against the Axis powers. Despite the unrelenting threat of attack and the risk to their lives, the U.S. Merchant Marine proved to be an invaluable asset on innumerable occasions, participating in every landing operation by the United States Marine Corps during the war. In speaking of the brave contributions made by the U.S. Merchant Marine, President Franklin Roosevelt said that the Merchant Marine ``delivered the goods when and where needed in every theater of operations and across every ocean in the biggest, the most difficult, and dangerous transportation job ever undertaken.'' President Roosevelt also said that ``as time goes on, there will be greater public understanding of our merchant fleet's record during this war.'' In fact, during a recent visit to the National World War II Museum in New Orleans, Louisiana, I was pleased and proud to see the proper and impressive display dedicated to the role of the merchant marine in that war. Indeed, more than 70 years after President Roosevelt spoke those words, the House is taking an important step today to honor and to shed light on the contributions of the merchant marines made during World War II. To further the public's understanding of the role the merchant marines played in securing the defeat of the Axis powers, the legislation will ensure that the Gold Medal will be given to the American Merchant Marine Museum, where it will be available for viewing by the public. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of S. 2234, legislation to award a Congressional Gold Medal to members of the Office of Strategic Services in recognition of their significant service and contributions against the Axis Powers during World War II. I am pleased to note that the legislation has already passed the Senate with unanimous consent, and that companion legislation, introduced here in the House, has already received the endorsement of 320 cosponsors. Upon passage here in the House, the legislation will be cleared for the President's signature. Created at the start of World War II, the Office of Strategic Services was the Nation's first effort to implement a coordinated intelligence system, laying the foundation for our modern-day intelligence and special operations capabilities. In addition to honoring and recognizing the meaningful and personal sacrifice of the thousands of Americans who served as part of the Office of Strategic Services, the legacy of the OSS offers a number of lessons that continue to hold value to this day. Importantly, the legacy of the OSS serves as a reminder that effective coordination across our Nation's intelligence agencies continues to play a foundational role in promoting our national security interests. The OSS also serves to remind us of the importance of working strategically and in concert with our longstanding allies to prevail against those who seek to do our Nation harm. Indeed, during World War II, the OSS played a critical role in organizing, training, supplying, and fighting alongside resistance organizations throughout Europe and Asia. Moreover, throughout the war, the OSS demonstrated that our government is at its best when it brings together a wide range of individuals with diverse backgrounds. At its height in late 1944, the Office of Strategic Services employed nearly 13,000 individuals, nearly a third of whom were women. The service also drew its personnel not only from the military but also from civilians from all walks of life, including economists, psychologists, geographers, and a wide range of other fields. Upon the dissolution of the Office of Strategic Services at the close of World War II, General William J. Donovan, who headed the OSS, stated that, ``We have come to the end of an unusual experiment. That experiment was to determine whether a group of Americans constituting a cross section of racial origins, of abilities, of temperaments, and of talents could meet and risk an encounter with long-established and well-trained enemy organizations.'' He went on to conclude that, ``You can go with the assurance that you have made a beginning in showing the people of America that only by decisions of national policy based upon accurate information can we have the chance of a peace that will endure.'' So I am pleased that we are honoring the thousands of men and women who made the sacrifice to serve as part of the Office of Strategic Services, whose contribution was so critical to America's ultimate triumph over the Axis Powers. I am also pleased that the legislation will allow future generations to appreciate these contributions to our Nation and the world. By designating the Smithsonian Institution as the custodian of the medal, and by allowing for its display at other locations associated with the Office of Strategic Services, the legislation will ensure that the legacy and the lessons that can be drawn from the contributions made by members of the Office of Strategic Services will not be forgotten. So as we enter into unchartered waters with the incoming administration, I hope that we will all take pause and heed the lessons of the OSS and remember that America is at its best when we work together with our longstanding allies and when we recruit diverse personnel to serve our government. I also hope that it serves as a reminder of the importance of taking care of our veterans once their service has ended and they return to civilian life. I urge adoption of the legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.