Bill Foster

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer an amendment on behalf of me and my colleague, Congressman Scott Garrett, who is my Republican co-chair of the Payer State Caucus, which is a group of Members opposed to the massive transfer of wealth between one set of States to another. This amendment is a very simple one that would prohibit any of the funds in this bill from being used in the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, otherwise known as EPSCoR. EPSCoR was started in 1978 as an experimental program in the hopes of strengthening research infrastructure in areas of the country that receive less than their fair share, however defined. As a scientist and as an American, I think this goal is commendable, but the implementation of this program--and, in particular, the formulas used to earmark grants to a specific set of States--is absurd. The ability to participate in EPSCoR opportunities is based solely on whether or not a State has received less than 0.75 percent of the NSF research funding in the previous 3 years. Let me reiterate that. The Department of Energy's EPSCoR eligibility is determined by how much NSF research funding a given State has received in the previous 3 years. There is no rational basis for earmarking a grant program in one area of spending based on the spending in another unrelated program. Moreover, because EPSCoR considers the funding on a per-State basis rather than on a per capita basis, it has devolved into just another one of the many programs that steers money into States that already get far more than their fair share of Federal spending. EPSCoR is emblematic of a larger problem we have in this country. Every year, hundreds of billions of dollars are transferred out of States that pay far more in Federal taxes than they receive back in Federal spending--the payer States--and into States that receive a lot more Federal spending than they pay back in taxes--the taker States. In the case of Illinois, our economy loses $40 billion a year because we pay far more in Federal taxes than we receive back in Federal spending. As for my colleague from New Jersey, his State on a per capita basis has it even worse. This alone is responsible for the fiscal stress in both of our States. This is an enormous and unjustifiable redistribution of wealth between the States. This amendment takes a first small step to begin rolling back these taker State preferences by eliminating one of the many--but one of the most unjustifiable of them--the EPSCoR program. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, first off, I would like to emphasize that this does not take away funding from the Office of Science. It eliminates a very poorly designed set-aside that is based on spending that is completely unrelated to the actual Office of Science. If the goal of this program were to equalize the funding in the Office of Science, then it should be based on the actual expenditures of the Office of Science so that States that are underrepresented there would, presumably, be able to qualify for these. It does not do that. If it were designed to equalize the spending between States that receive a lot more Federal funding than those that don't, then you would see a very different set of States in this. Particularly the fact that it is not based on a per capita basis is the fundamental flaw in this thing. If you look at those States, the single distinguishing characteristic is not that they are poor or rural or anything else; it is that they have small populations, which means that they are overrepresented in the Senate. One of the main mechanisms for transferring wealth out of large States like New Jersey, like Illinois, like California, and a large number of other States into smaller States are spending formulas that have, frankly, been cooked up in the Senate, where small States are overrepresented and the formulas steer large amounts of money into them. If this were based on a per capita basis, it would, at least, be rational. If the Office of Science's funding were based on actual expenditures, at least in the Department of Energy, it would be rational. What we see are States receiving EPSCoR funds that get far more than their share both in Federal funding and in Department of Energy funding overall. A rational program would, first off, collect all research funding in all areas and base the set-asides on that. Secondly, it would do it on a per capita basis. These are fundamental flaws, and at this point it is preferable to just eliminate the entire program and start over if people think it is a useful thing. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, this appropriations bill would underfund the Office of Science by $272 million below the President's request for the next fiscal year. Investments in the DOE Office of Science have long supported American innovation and discovery science. It is unwise and, in fact, impossible to ignore the value of our national labs. They have helped us answer fundamental questions about how our universe works, supported breakthroughs in medicine and developments in industry that drive our economy. The Office of Science is not only an important investment in our future, it is a valuable investment in our economy. Our national labs and the major user facilities housed at those labs are some of the greatest tools ever created for researchers and industry. The direct economic benefit of Argonne and Fermilab in Illinois alone is estimated to be more than $1.3 billion annually. The indirect benefits of the technologies that they deliver is larger. Those who seek to underfund and eliminate Federal programs often say that the private sector can do it better, but when it comes to fundamental scientific research, that is simply not the case. The Office of Science is responsible for building and maintaining research facilities which many private companies rely on but are too big for any single business or university to develop. These user facilities, such as the advanced photon source at Argonne National Laboratory, are a critical research tool to academics and industry alike. For example, AbbVie, recently won FDA approval for a new leukemia drug that was developed because of the groundbreaking crystallography research done at Argonne's APS. As other world powers are growing and challenging our position as a global leader in science and innovation, we cannot afford to let the number of American scientists and researchers or the quality of their research facilities diminish. Madam Chair, we must continue to invest in American innovation and fully fund the research and development conducted through the DOE Office of Science.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Green for yielding me the time. My bill, H.R. 4982, the Examining Opioid Treatment Infrastructure Act of 2016, is straightforward, and it is bipartisan. If we are ever going to get a handle on the heroin and opioid epidemic tearing through our communities, we have to know what we are dealing with. We need data, and we need to know what capacity we have in place and what capacity we need to treat this epidemic so that we can make smart and adequate investments, which is why we need this bill. This important bill directs a study of the inpatient and outpatient addiction treatment capacity and availability throughout the U.S., as well as an assessment of the needed types and numbers of treatment options. It seems simple, but there is no better place to start than at the beginning, with an understanding of the addiction treatment infrastructure that we have versus the need for that infrastructure. When I was first elected to Congress, I was not prepared to hear the stories from family members who had lost a loved one due to substance abuse. My office often gets calls from parents wanting to share their stories of the children they have lost to addiction. While opioid addiction may start in many ways, it ends with a scientifically understood, increasingly treatable medical condition in which the biochemical pathways necessary to normal decisionmaking in the brain have been hijacked, and the chemistry of the brain permanently altered. The more we learn about the science of addiction, the more convinced we become that the best path forward is treating addiction like the medical, biochemical condition that it is. To do this successfully, we need the correct number and types of addiction treatment facilities. That is why I introduced the Examining Opioid Treatment Infrastructure Act of 2016, with my friend from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). We know that opioid use and abuse has become an epidemic, and now let's make sure that we know the real numbers we are dealing with so we can allocate the necessary resources. I urge support of the Examining Opioid Treatment Infrastructure Act of 2016.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of those we have lost to heroin and opioid addiction. Another 30 people are likely to die today, another 30 lives lost on top of the thousands that we are losing each year to this epidemic. We have lost daughters and sons, fathers and mothers, sisters, brothers. Friends, acquaintances, and coworkers alike have lost their battles with addiction. Too often their deaths have been cloaked in the shadows. Obituaries remain silent on the cause of death. For too long our society has viewed opioid addiction as simply a moral failing rather than the treatable medical condition that it is. While opioid addiction may start with an excessive prescription or an indiscretion of youth, it ends with a scientifically understood, increasingly treatable, medical condition in which the biochemical pathways necessary to normal decisionmaking in the brain have been hijacked and the chemistry of the brain permanently altered. Heroin does not discriminate. It does not care if you are rich or poor, Black or White, a devoted mother, or a loving child. None of us are immune to its chemical grips. So today I pay my respects. Those who fall prey to opioids are worthy of being mourned. They are not forgotten.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ken Christy, a letter carrier, an extraordinary leader, a member of our community, and a friend of mine. Ken passed away unexpectedly this past Easter weekend. A family man, Ken left behind his three daughters and his wife, Bonnie, his high school sweetheart, to whom he was married for 52 years. Ken gave back to his community in spades. He volunteered countless hours to the letter carriers' annual food drive because he wanted to make a real difference in the lives of those in our community who are less fortunate. Since 2013, Ken served as the clerk of Aurora Township. Ken always stood up for working families. As president of the Illinois Letter Carriers Association, Ken made sure that the voices of his members were heard by public officials on both sides of the aisle. Not surprisingly, Ken was named into the Illinois Letter Carriers Hall of Fame in 2012. He knew people from all walks of life and all political persuasions, but I never heard a bad word said about him. Ken was, indeed, a friend. He was a friend to the city of Aurora, he was a friend to the letter carriers and to their families throughout the State of Illinois. Ken Christy will be missed.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize MorningStar Mission as the recipient of the 2016 Outstanding Agency in Human Services Award and Glen Marcum as the recipient of the 2016 Outstanding Individual in Human Services Award. Established in 1909 because of the great need to feed and house homeless men, MorningStar Mission now serves men, women, and families with children--providing critical services ranging from meals, to transitional housing, to permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans and a 72-bed facility to allow families to remain intact. For its many contributions to our community, MorningStar Mission is to be commended. Also deserving of commendation is Glen Marcum, who has been an active member of our community for over 25 years. In addition to serving as President of the Joliet Park District Board of Commissioners, Glen has been involved in numerous activities in our area's education and nonprofit community, including his current position as a Regional Board Member for the American Cancer Society. I would also like to recognize the Community Service Council of Will County for its commitment to our community and for identifying and honoring leaders in the Human Services sector annually since 1972. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating MorningStar Mission and Glen Marcum, and in thanking them for the service they have given to our community.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland for coordinating this discussion, and I thank Ranking Member Conyers for yielding. Madam Speaker, a Supreme Court sitting with only eight Justices, including the Chief Justice, is not good for democracy. The failure by the Senate to consider our President's nominee because of the electoral cycle is an abdication of constitutional responsibility that is without precedent and without reason. Now, I am best known to my colleagues as the last Ph.D. scientist in Congress or perhaps as the businessman who founded a company with his brother that now manufactures most of the theater lighting equipment in the United States. What is less well known is that I am also the son of a civil rights lawyer who wrote much of the enforcement language behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like me, my father was a scientist, and he stepped away from his career in science to become a civil rights lawyer. There was a decade between the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education that held that racially segregated school systems were inherently unequal and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My father spent most of that decade traveling around the South, advising school boards and Federal judges on the nuts and bolts of school desegregation. In August of 1969, President Richard Nixon nominated Judge Clement F. Haynsworth to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The nomination was to replace Justice Abe Fortas, a liberal from the New Deal era. The confirmation of Clement Haynsworth would have shifted the balance of the Court significantly to the right. Many liberal Democrats were strongly opposed to the nomination on ideological grounds, but my father knew Judge Haynsworth from his years working in civil rights. He knew him to be an intelligent and a fair- minded man. So my father was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the nomination of Clement Haynsworth. My father's testimony cited specific cases in which he, my father, as an avowedly liberal Democrat, would have decided otherwise. But he pointed out that the decisions could be sustained by a reasonable man and could be sustained under precedent. In the closing of my father's testimony, he said: The question for me is not whether I would have made another nominee for the Supreme Court. It is rather the question of whether Judge Haynsworth possesses the qualities required to become a fine Justice of the Supreme Court. This is the standard that should be employed by the Senate today. The President alone has the authority and the obligation to nominate a person to serve on the Supreme Court. The Senate can defeat that nomination through a vote on the Senate floor after hearings and thoughtful considerations of a person's judicial temperament and intellect. I believe that considering those characteristics makes it clear that Judge Merrick Garland is eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. But from the Framers, to my father, to today, we have established frameworks for making those decisions. The Supreme Court should not be, as a famous President once said, a political football, and filling the bench is vitally important. So I urge my colleagues in the Senate to give Merrick Garland what liberal Democrats gave Clement Haynsworth: hearings and a vote. In 1969, finally, the Senate voted to withhold its consent for the appointment of Clement Haynsworth 3 months after his nomination, with 38 Democrats and 17 Republicans voting against him. I think that the process will make it clear how qualified Merrick Garland is and that he will be confirmed, but the Senate must follow the process established in the Constitution for reviewing a nominee.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the hard work and determination of the top 25 graduating seniors from Joliet Catholic Academy, Joliet West High School, and Joliet Central High School. The academic achievements of these students are impressive, as are their community service and participation in school activities. These students truly have taken advantage of all that high school has to offer. Also to be commended are the Joliet Region Chamber of Commerce, along with the Joliet Exchange, the Joliet Kiwanis, the Joliet Lions, and the Joliet Rotary Clubs, for hosting the 2016 Top Student Recognition Banquet to recognize these students. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing these top graduating seniors, as well as the Joliet Region Chamber of Commerce, the Joliet Exchange, Joliet Kiwanis, Joliet Lions, and Joliet Rotary Clubs for hosting the 2016 Top Student Banquet.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Library Week and to celebrate how local libraries continue to be a vital resource in communities across the Nation. Libraries have evolved beyond buildings of quiet study into engaging community centers where people can gather to collaborate on projects, children can come to participate in educational activities, and job- seekers can use as a resource for help in finding connections with employers. National Library Week is a perfect opportunity to highlight the services being provided in libraries by librarians and staff focused on creating environments where people can not only find the information they need, but use that information to better themselves and their communities. Counting both public and private, there are nearly 120,000 libraries across the United States, which together employ more than 350,000 people and provide services to millions of Americans each year. In my district, I have seen this transformation taking place, where access to the latest technologies, like 3-D printers, laser cutters, and video editing centers, can often be found at the local library. Libraries across the country continue to serve as centers of education, research, and community development, and I extend my thanks to the librarians and their staff.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, as the only physicist remaining in the United States Congress, I feel a special responsibility to speak out on the importance of strengthening global nuclear security. In just a few days, the United States will host the fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit. World leaders from more than 50 countries will convene in Washington, D.C., to participate in a global dialogue to reinforce our commitment at the highest levels to securing nuclear materials. To date, these summits have been instrumental in achieving critical nuclear security objectives, such as minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium in reactors around the world, and enhancing membership in international organizations like the IAEA. But more remains to be done. It is no secret that rogue regimes and clandestine organizations continue to exhibit the ambition to acquire nuclear materials that can be used to create crude radiological dirty bombs or nuclear weapons. I am, however, optimistic that with our allies and partners around the world, we will continue to develop new and innovative ideas to secure vulnerable nuclear material and make the world a safer place.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 75th anniversary of the Rotary Club of Naperville, which was founded on March 31, 1941. The Rotary Club of Naperville is a chartered member of Rotary International, which boasts an impressive membership of 1.2 million neighbors, friends, and community leaders who come together to create positive, lasting change in our communities and around the world. Since its inception, the Rotary Club of Naperville has been a major supporter of charitable and community causes, and has contributed over $1 million to deserving programs that serve those in need throughout our community. Moreover, its members have devoted immeasurable hours in volunteer and humanitarian service, not only in our community but across the globe. The Rotary Club of Naperville and its members truly live the Rotary motto, ``Service Above Self.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Rotary Club of Naperville and in commending it as it continues its long tradition of fellowship and service.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marian Krupicka as Darien, Illinois' Citizen of the Year 2016. Mrs. Krupicka first began her support of public libraries in 1978 by volunteering with the Darien Library, which at that time was housed in a bus. What started as a small book mobile in a parking lot in Darien in 1978 has grown to the renowned award winning Indian Prairie Public Library thanks to Mrs. Krupicka and her perseverance to achieve the best. Mrs. Krupicka's contribution to the Darien community doesn't stop at her library service; she also dedicated 30 years of her life to educating students. She was a Language Arts and Social Studies teacher at Eisenhower High School. During her teaching career, she touched many students' hearts through her ``not one size fits all'' teaching philosophy. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Krupicka for being named Darien's Citizen of the Year and thank her for the time, service, and commitment she has given to our community.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor St. Elmo Brady. He was the first African American to obtain a Ph.D. degree in chemistry in the United States. He received a Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Illinois in 1916 for work done at the Noyes Laboratory. Dr. Brady was a pioneer in the teaching of science at both Tuskegee University and at Howard University in Washington, D.C. His research included work on determining the structure of organic acids, methods of determining properties of alkaloids and infrared spectroscopy. This later research resulted in the formation of the Fisk Infrared Spectroscopy Research Laboratory and the Fisk Infrared Institute. In conjunction with faculty from the University of Illinois, Dr. Brady also established a summer program in infrared spectroscopy, which was open to faculty from all colleges and universities. Dr. Brady is just one of the many African American pioneering scientists whose work should be lifted up as the role model that it is, not just during Black History Month, but all year round.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, last month President Obama came to this Chamber to speak, inter alia, of a moonshot to cure cancer under the leadership of Vice President Biden. This week the President announced specific plans to invest $1 billion to fund that moonshot. As a scientist and as the manager of large scientific projects, I am naturally inclined to be skeptical of such bold claims from politicians. President Nixon famously launched the same war on cancer in 1971. Tragically, we continue to wage that war today. More recently, Andrew von Eschenbach, the director of the National Cancer Institute under President Bush, set the goal of eliminating suffering and death from cancer by 2015. We all know, unfortunately, that that goal was never met. So why is this cancer moonshot any different? Is this a moment like 1961 when President Kennedy stood before a joint session of Congress and announced his goal of sending a man to the Moon by the end of the decade and succeeded? Or is this a moment like 1971 when President Nixon declared war on cancer and failed? I believe that President Obama's cancer initiative will succeed, and the reason that it will succeed is brutally simple: Science, basic science and technology that exists today and did not exist 45 years ago; technology that was generated by decades of curiosity-driven federally funded research paid for by the United States taxpayer. There are many decades of federally supported basic scientific advances that will allow the Obama-Biden cancer moonshot to succeed: The ability to fully genome sequence individual cancers, the ability to manipulate the genome and produce animal models to study and to test the basic mechanisms of cancer, and immunotherapy treatment, which was named Science magazine's breakthrough of the year in 2013 and has been capturing so many headlines around the world. Immunotherapy is an ingenious and revolutionary treatment that uses the body's own immune system to fight cancer. Since time immemorial, there have been stories of miraculous remissions of cancer when patients with apparently incurable cancers have experienced spontaneous and often complete remissions. These were often attributed to an act of God or perhaps the moral character of the patient. We now understand that for most, if not all, of these remissions that they happen when the body's immune system, which has evolved over millions of years of combat with foreign viral and bacterial invaders, finally understands that cancer is an enemy and has all the horsepower that it needs to attack and to clean it up. Immunotherapy now gives us the scientific understanding of how to mass produce those miracles. This would never have been discovered without decades of sustained Federal investment in R&D, and although the breakthroughs in immunotherapy rest upon a large pyramid of federally funded research, there are two parallel threads of federally funded research that directly led to this breakthrough. One was pioneered by Jim Allison, then of UC Berkeley, and Arlene Sharpe of Harvard Medical School. The other was pioneered by Lieping Chen of the Mayo Clinic, all three labs using Federal funds to study how the immune system is controlled and how it knows to kill foreign cells but not its own cells. This was a fascinating scientific question, but not one which was obviously relevant to cancer. All three labs were sponsored by basic science peer-reviewed grants from the National Institutes of Health, which I mention, Mr. Speaker, because of the way that peer review seems to be coming under attack by members of your party. In the 1990s these groups were all working on what became known as immune checkpoints, which are regulatory pathways to turn down the immune system to prevent it from attacking its own body. Even once this basic discovery was made, the established pharmaceutical companies would not touch it, but in 1999 Medarex, a small biotech in Princeton, New Jersey, funded by the National Institutes of Health, took on the project. Ten years later, only after Medarex was well on the way to showing that their cancer immunotherapy approach worked in humans, it was purchased by Bristol-Myers Squibb for $2.4 billion. Now there are many drug companies developing checkpoint inhibitor drugs to treat cancer as well as other immune system-related treatments for cancer. So, as I mentioned before, the Obama-Biden cancer moonshot will likely succeed because of the technology and basic science that was generated by decades of curiosity-driven scientific research funded by the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, I am the representative of U.S. citizens, but one who does not share your party's monomania about small government or a desire to keep our government small and indebted simply to provide low tax rates for wealthy donors because Americans know that small government does not accomplish great things, like sending a man to the Moon or curing cancer. The following is a complete text of my remarks: Mr. Speaker, last month, President Obama came to this chamber to speak, inter alia, of a ``moonshot'' to cure cancer, under the leadership of Vice President Biden. This week the President announced specific plans to invest one billion dollars to fund that ``moonshot.'' As a scientist, and as the manager of large scientific projects, I am naturally inclined to be skeptical of such bold claims from politicians. President Richard Nixon famously launched the same ``war on cancer'' in 1971. Tragically, we continue to wage that war today. More recently, Andrew von Eschenbach, the director of the National Cancer Institute under President Bush, set the goal of ``eliminating suffering and death from cancer by 2015.'' We all know, unfortunately, that goal was not met. So why is this ``cancer moonshot'' any different? Is this a moment like 1961, when President Kennedy stood before a joint session of Congress and announced his goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade--and succeeded? Or a moment like 1971 when President Nixon declared War on Cancer and failed? I believe that President Obama's cancer initiative will succeed. And the reason it will succeed is brutally simple: science. Basic science and technology that exists today, and did not exist 45 years ago. Technology that was generated by decades of curiosity-driven scientific research--paid for by the United States Taxpayer. There are many decades of federally-supported basic scientific advances that will allow the Obama-Biden cancer moonshot succeed: the ability to fully genome sequence individual cancers, the ability to manipulate the genome to produce animal models to study and test the basic mechanisms of cancer, and immunotherapy treatment, which was named Science Magazine's breakthrough of the year in 2013, and which has been capturing so many headlines around the world. Immunotherapy is an ingenious and revolutionary treatment that uses the body's own immune system to fight cancer. Since time immemorial, there have been stories of ``miraculous remissions'' of cancer, where patients with apparently incurable cancers have experienced spontaneous and often complete remissions. These were often attributed to an act of God, or perhaps the moral character of the patient. We now understand that most, if not all, of these remissions happen when the body's immune system, which has evolved over millennia of combat with foreign viral and bacterial invaders, finally understands the cancer as an enemy, and has all of the horsepower it needs to attack it and to clean it up. And immunotherapy now gives us the scientific understanding of how to mass produce those miracles. But this would never have been discovered without decades of sustained federal investments in R&D. Although the breakthroughs of immunotherapy rest on a pyramid of largely taxpayer-funded research, there are two parallel threads of federally funded research that directly led to this breakthrough. One was pioneered by Jim Allison, then of UC Berkeley, and Arlene Sharpe, of Harvard Medical School. The other was pioneered by Lieping Chen of the Mayo Clinic. All three labs were using federal funds to study how the immune system is controlled, how it knows to kill foreign cells but not its own cells. This was a fascinating scientific question, but not one that was obviously relevant to cancer. All three labs are supported by basic-science from the National Institutes of Health peer-reviewed grants. Which I mention, Mr. Speaker, because of the way that peer review is coming under attack by members of your party. In the 1990s, they were all working on what have come to be known as immunological checkpoints, which are regulatory pathways that turn down the immune system to prevent it from attacking its own body. Even once this basic discovery was made, the established pharmaceutical companies would not touch it. But in 1999, Medarex, a small biotech in Princeton, NJ, funded by the National Institutes of Health, took on the project. Ten years later, only after Medarex was well on the way to showing that their cancer immunotherapy approach worked in humans, it was purchased by Bristol-Myers-Squibb for 2.4 billion dollars. There are now many drug companies developing checkpoint inhibitor drugs to treat cancer, as well as other immune- system-related treatments for cancer. So as I mentioned before, the Obama-Biden cancer moonshot will likely succeed, because of the technology and basic science that was generated by decades of curiosity-driven scientific research--funded by the United States Government. Or, funded by big government, Mr. Speaker, as your colleagues like to say. Funded by a big government, directed by a vast, unelected, overpaid, lazy, wasteful federal bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that will save millions of American lives. I often hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim we don't need to make federal investments in R&D, because if it's worth doing, the private sector will do it. Immunotherapy is a perfect example of why that logic doesn't work. The private sector took over, but not until researchers spent decades and millions of taxpayer dollars elucidating the basic science and proving this method could work. I also hear my colleagues cherry picking studies that they can't make sense of and label them as wasteful spending, then trumpeting their success in cutting ``wasteful'' government spending. When the truth is those ``wasteful'' programs often lead to breakthroughs like immunotherapy. The cancer moonshot being led by Vice President Biden is likely to succeed, but only because of sustained investments in federal funding for research and development. As we work in the coming months to develop a budget, I hope my colleagues will keep this in mind. I am the representative of U.S. citizens, Mr. Speaker, but one that does not share your party's monomania about ``small government'', or a desire to keep government small and indebted simply to provide low tax rates for its wealthy donors. Because Americans know that small government does not accomplish great things, like sending a man to the moon, or curing cancer.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 2015, I, along with 60 of my colleagues, sent a letter to the House Appropriations Committee urging robust funding for the accounts that support the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an international organization tasked with verifying that states comply with their commitments under the Non- Proliferation Treaty and other non-proliferation agreements. Whether or not Members of Congress supported the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, we have a foremost responsibility to the continued security of the United States and our allies. Funding the organization that is tasked with monitoring and verifying Iran's nuclear activities is essential to that security. As such, I submit the following letter from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. December 17, 2015. Withholding Funding from the IAEA is Ill-Advised and Dangerous. Dear Members of Congress: As individuals who have dedicated our professional lives to national security and nuclear nonproliferation, we strongly urge that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) receive full funding to monitor Iran's compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The United States, its international negotiating partners, and Iran continue to move towards full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which will restrict and monitor Iran's nuclear activity in exchange for relief from economic sanctions related to its nuclear program. The nuclear watchdog organization, the IAEA, is responsible for verifying that Iran is in compliance with the agreement through an unprecedented system of intrusive inspections and safeguards. IAEA monitoring is essential for deterring and detecting illicit nuclear behavior by Iran; without adequate funding, the international community cannot responsibly verify that Iran's nuclear program remains peaceful and in-line with its commitments. According to Director General Yukiya Amano, the IAEA requires an additional $10.6 million per year to undertake this task. This additional funding will pay for new inspectors, the installation and maintenance of safeguard and verification technology, and other monitoring activities that exceed the surveillance normally conducted by the IAEA. Unfortunately, some key members of Congress advocate blocking any U.S. contribution to these additional funds. On December 3, Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) introduced House Resolution 553, supported by several House committee chairs, urging that additional funding be blocked unless the IAEA releases confidential documents between it and Iran. Release of these documents would violate the confidentiality of the IAEA, which has been universally regarded as necessary to ensure the cooperation of countries with inspection and verification agreements. Though the resolution is not legally binding, it sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation. It is difficult to understand why Members of Congress would block verification of Iran's nuclear activities. Such a self- defeating move would only increase the potential for Iran to hide violations of the agreement by reducing the likelihood of detection. We strongly urge Congress to ensure that the IAEA receives full funding to effectively monitor Iran's implementation of and compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Doing so will make the United States, its allies, and the world safer. Sincerely, Hans Blix, Director General Emeritus, IAEA; Maj. General Roger R. Blunt, USA (Ret.); Amb. Kenneth C. Brill (ret), Former ambassador to the IAEA, Founding Director of the U.S. National Counterproliferation Center; Matthew Bunn, Professor, Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center, Harvard University; Brig. Gen. Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.); Charles D. Ferguson, Ph.D., President, Federation of American Scientists, Former Naval Nuclear Officer; Trevor Findlay, Associate, Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center, Harvard University; Brig. Gen. Evelyn ``Pat'' Foote, USA (Ret.); Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, USA (Ret.), Chairman Emeritus, Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation; Richard L. Garwin, Contributor to design and test of nuclear weapons, IBM Fellow Emeritus; Amb. Thomas Graham Jr. (ret.), Chairman, Lightbridge Corp.; Lt. Gen. Arlen D. Jameson. USAF (Ret.); Brig. Gen. John H. Johns, USA (Ret.), Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, National Defense University. David Kay, Former IAEA Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq (after first Gulf War); Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.); Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association; Maj. Gen. Frederick H. Lawson, USA (Ret.); Edward P. Levine, Ph.D., Retired senior professional staff member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program, Center for Nonproliferation Studies; Martin Mallin, Executive Director, Managing the Atom Project, Belfer Center, Harvard University; Laura Rockwood, Executive Director, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Former Section Head, IAEA; Joan Rohlfing, President and COO, Nuclear Threat Initiative; Andrew K. Semmel, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Policy; Lt. Gen. James M. Thompson, USA (Ret.), Vice Chair, Boise, ID Committee on Foreign Relations; Jim Walsh, Ph.D., Security Studies Program, MIT; Honorable Andy Weber, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Commander Joe Groom of the Aurora Police Department. Since his appointment to the Aurora Police Department in 1989, Commander Groom rose through the ranks to become Investigations Division Commander. He was a steadfast fixture in our community through his involvement in local organizations and constant engagement with his neighbors, fellow officers, and city officials. Commander Groom was also an ambassador for the City of Aurora, through his work with the International and Illinois Associations of Chiefs of Police, the Chiefs Associations in Kane, DuPage, and Kendall Counties, the Kane County DUI Task Force, the Juvenile Drug Court Advisory Committee, and the Aurora Police Foundation. Beyond his involvement with law enforcement, Commander Groom held leadership positions in the Exchange Club of Aurora, the Knights of Columbus Council 736, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of Kane and Kendall Counties. Commander Groom passed away on December 9, 2015, at the age of 50. Although his life was tragically cut short, his legacy of 26 years of selfless service will be felt by generations of Aurorans. He will be remembered as a dedicated husband, father, and community leader.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, we have seen an uproar over the death of Laquan McDonald, and rightfully so. But, sadly, the injustice for Laquan goes much deeper. Laquan McDonald suffered more tragedy in his short life than anyone should have to bear. As a child, Laquan was abused at home. He was then handed over to the Department of Children and Family Services, where he was sexually molested, not just once but in two different foster homes. At 17 years old, Laquan was shot 16 times by an on-duty police officer. Even after death, the injustice continued. It took 400 days before the officer who shot Laquan faced charges. We should all be ashamed at how our society failed Laquan McDonald. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that Black lives matter, that Laquan McDonald's life matters, and justice matters. We should all be working to ensure that Laquan gets the justice that he has been denied for so long and to end the cycle of poverty, abuse, and injustice that shaped his life.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Joliet Central High School and its Veterans Ceremony. On Friday, November 6, 2015, Joliet Central High School hosted its 5th Annual Veterans Ceremony to recognize the sacrifice of alumni, faculty, and community members who have served in the armed forces. This year, Joliet Central High School honored the following veterans: Joseph Berman; Charles Muller; Bill Thorns; Ted Micci; Felix Pasteris; Dan Ursitti; Edward Mena; Christo Dragatsis; Jerald Brazeal; Donald Boyer; Gregory E. Warren; Larry Musson; Frank Varman; Larry Evert; and Hank Pillard. I would like to commend Joliet Central High School for recognizing our veterans and I join the students, faculty, and administrators in thanking them for their service.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Aurora Regional Chamber of Commerce in Aurora, Illinois. For their dedication to hiring veterans in our community, the group recently received the Three Star Chamber of Valor Award by the United States Chamber of Commerce. They were recognized for their participation in the Hiring Our Heroes program and for encouraging local businesses to provide access to good-paying jobs for the men and women who have served our country in uniform. Of course, they didn't do it on their own, so I would like to join the Chamber in recognizing a few local businesses who have taken the lead in hiring and supporting veterans: Old Second Bank, Alarm Detection Systems, and The Studio at 46 West, a veteran-owned business. I would also like to join the Chamber in recognizing the Roosevelt Aurora Post No. 84 of the American Legion for their work in serving the community. I would like to thank the members of the Aurora Regional Chamber of Commerce and all of the local businesses in our community who have made hiring veterans a priority.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the legislation designed to chip away at the independence of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve's objectives of maximum employment and stable prices have and will remain moving targets. The legislation attacks the independent judgment of the Fed in a number of ways by intrusive and dangerous meddling in the guise of Congressional oversight. This legislation also suggests that this complex task could somehow be reduced to a function of two variables. Now, I am a physicist and, as Albert Einstein said: ``Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.'' In reality, economics is a field of study that is constrained by numbers, but within those constraints, there lie large psychological variables and many external, often international, and often random variables. It is obvious that any two-variable rule is far too simple to guide the monetary policy of a $17 trillion national economy interconnected with the economies in every part of the world. It is also clear from the incoherent and counterfactual tirades that we listen to in our committee after the Republican financial collapse of 2007, that we want to keep politics as far away as possible from Federal Reserve monetary policy. The truth is that Federal monetary policy is already guided, but not determined, by a number of complex, macroeconomic models. It is very far from ad hoc. In fact, at the heart of many of these models lies a variance of what is called the Cobb-Douglas production function. And the Douglas in that name is Senator Paul Douglas, an economist from the University of Chicago before he became a Senator and the author of some of the most influential papers in economics. My mother worked for Senator Paul Douglas when he was a Senator back in the 1950s, and when I see the level to which economic debate has fallen in this country from Senator Paul Douglas to what we see today, it breaks my heart. Now, I agree that our markets and economies have changed since the Federal Reserve was formed. And the system deserves study, but this bill is not about studying the Federal Reserve. It is about subjecting it to the politics and the backseat driving that it often needs to overcome to meet its dual mandate. Mr. Chairman, this bill chips away at the independence of the Federal Reserve, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 635, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against: