Steve Israel

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops the Department of the Interior from entering into cooperative agreements or providing financial assistance of any kind for the purpose of protecting natural, cultural, or historic resources in several counties in southeast Colorado. It is my understanding that the sponsor aims to preemptively prevent an expansion of the Federal footprint in his district, specifically due to concerns with the application of Executive Order No. 13287. I would remind the sponsor that the Preserve America Executive Order was issued by President George W. Bush, a Republican, and emphasizes private-public partnerships that limit, not expand, Federal ownership. If there are specific concerns about Federal management in the region, the sponsor, I hope, would work with the authorizing committee to make sure they are addressed, not use the appropriations process to wall off a section of the country from partnering with the Federal Government to preserve its historic, cultural, and natural resources. That is why I oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, title 42 authority is a flexible hiring mechanism that allows agencies to attract and retain staff with outstanding scientific, technical, and clinical skills. It is not always easy for the Federal Government to attract high-level professionals who have invested many years in school and can easily make more in private practice or even in academia, and that is why the Federal Government needs to allow these agencies to provide some additional incentives to recruit these employees. With our Nation facing so many crises like Zika, we really should be investing in our scientists. This amendment unfairly attacks Federal employees who devote their life to public service. I urge defeat of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, we have such an array of public health and science emergencies: we have Zika; we have Ebola; we have public health emergencies; we have pandemics, epidemics. Now is the time for us to recruit the best and the brightest in the scientific community. Title 42 gives us the ability to do that. This amendment would undermine that ability, and it should be defeated.

Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ISRAEL. Reclaiming my time, the EPA uses scientists engaged in research on pesticides. It uses scientists engaged in other health- related emergencies. We have a difference of opinion as to how to deploy those scientists, where to deploy those scientists. I, as a Member of Congress, don't want to make that decision. I want to make sure that the Federal Government is deploying the scientific community across a broad range of challenges, which is why I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply an overreaction to a policy proposal in the administration's fiscal year 2017 budget request. The budget request proposed to redirect funds currently allocated to payments to States and shift them toward Federal programs that serve the Nation more broadly. The proposal wasn't included in the bill because the Committee on Appropriations rejected it. The appropriation process is just that, it is a process. The administration submitted a proposal, the committee evaluated it, and the power to accept or reject the proposal lay with the committee. This amendment would unnecessarily stifle any proposal to amend the current formula, which is unnecessary, because Congress would need to enact legislation before any changes could be made to the formula. The Department of the Interior does not have the authority to change the formula through rulemaking or other administrative action. Basically, Mr. Chairman, this would prohibit the Department from even suggesting an idea for Congress to consider. I urge my colleagues to preserve the integrity of the appropriations process and the Committee on the Appropriations and oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing radical about any administration, Democrat or Republican, making a decision, making a rule that would shift funds from specific States to broader national purposes. I understand the gentleman's and his colleagues' concern for this particular policy, but this is an overreach, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would prohibit the Department from even suggesting an idea for Congress to consider. This is not worthy of the appropriations process. It ought to be considered as part of a broader approach by the gentleman, not in this bill, and I urge defeat of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and my friend. More than anything, I want to thank him for his leadership in being able to bring people on both sides of this aisle together on the commonsense notion that, if you can't buy a plane ticket, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. If you are on the terrorist watch list, you shouldn't be able to avail yourself of a weapon. Mr. Speaker, when 20 children were murdered in Sandy Hook, the district of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, I really believed that Congress was going to do something. What did we do? Nothing. When Americans were murdered in San Bernardino, I said, well, this time we are going to do something. What did we do then? Nothing. We do moments of silence, and we do not act. Enough silence. We are here to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and protect and defend the lives of the American people, and to allow lives to be mowed down, to allow our fellow citizens to be slaughtered and say that the solution to this is another moment of silence is unconscionable. We came into session tonight, Mr. Speaker, and on Friday, the Speaker of the House will bang the gavel down and send Congress home for a week. In that week, so many more Americans will be killed by gun violence--so many more. To allow this Congress to take a week's vacation and do nothing on gun violence is unconscionable. No bill, no break, Mr. Speaker. No bill, no break. If the Speaker won't allow us to even vote on a bill, then we shouldn't be allowed to take a break and go home to our districts. For those who decide that they are going to leave here without even raising their voices in support of a vote, I don't know how you will defend that decision when you go home. I don't know how you will look your constituents in the eye and say: I have a week off, and I have done nothing to protect and defend my constituents. I understand there are some real, fundamental, and profound differences on various potential solutions to gun violence. What this gentleman has done is brought us to common ground. No fly, no buy: 80 percent of the American people support no fly, no buy; 70 percent of NRA members support no fly, no buy; the vast majority of Republicans support no fly, no buy, along with Democrats and Independents. The reason there is support for this bill is not only is it common sense, but as the gentleman just demonstrated, he and his bipartisan cosponsor, a Republican from New York, have worked out so many areas of disagreement to areas of agreement. When the vast majority of the American people agree that terrorists should not be able to easily purchase guns, then the people's House should listen to the people. We should pass no fly, no buy, and we need to do it by the time we recess. No bill, no break, Mr. Speaker. I hope that our colleagues understand the importance of that.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 129, which passed the House of Representatives earlier this month. This resolution urges the Federal Republic of Germany to reaffirm itself to its goal of guaranteeing that all Holocaust victims live with dignity, comfort, and security throughout the rest of their lives. The tragedies and hardships that Holocaust survivors have endured in their lifetime are undeniable and we should do everything in our power to ensure they should face no such hardships again. But, despite this, many survivors throughout the country and world are living in poverty and require assistance and specific services that they cannot afford on their own. There are approximately 500,000 remaining Holocaust survivors today, and more than 60,000 of them are in need of home care services. The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims Conference) has devoted itself to negotiating with the German Government to provide payments to assist these survivors. Since its first agreement in 1952, $70 billion has been distributed to more than 800,000 Holocaust survivors and the 60,000 survivors still in need of care today means these efforts must continue. That is why I support the work of the Claims Conference, why I co-sponsored and voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 129, and why I will continue to support such efforts to ensure survivors have the support and financial assistance to live out their lives with dignity, comfort, and security.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share letters written to me by Mrs. Widyn's 4th Grade Class at North Side Elementary School in East Williston about the importance of preserving Long Island Sound. It was a pleasure to visit this class and see how motivated they are to save our environment broadly, and Long Island Sound specifically. I would like to insert letters they wrote to me in the Congressional Record. Dear Congressman Israel: I am writing to you so you can ask the Congress to set aside some money to keep the Long Island Sound clean. I have many reasons why we need to protect this beautiful body of water. One reason is that it is our greatest natural resource. Also, there are many animal habitats that are getting wrecked because of all the dirty garbage. Some of the animals are birds, wildlife and marine life. There is also a bird there that is endangered called the Piping Plover. The Piping Plover might become extinct if we keep this up. One last reason is that in a few years there would so much garbage and pollution that it will cost even more money to fix than it already does. I am 9 years old and I figured out the importance of keeping the Long Island Sound in good shape. I hope the people we elect to represent us gives this problem their consideration and that they understand the importance of this big issue, not just for the people who live on the Long Island Sound, but for the environment that everybody shares. Sincerely, Brianna Janicek.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with the way the Majority has undermined the welfare of our troops by inserting poisonous language into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017. Last week I unfortunately had to vote against the FY 17 NDAA. I want to state that it pained me to take that vote. Throughout my career I have supported our service members in every respect. I have worked tirelessly on veterans issues. I have worked closely with Department of Defense leadership to ensure our troops on the front lines have had every resource they needed to be successful and that our troops and their families at home were well taken care of. Last week, the Majority injected their reckless ideology into the bill: a provision that would explicitly allow defense contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees. The language seeks to nullify an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from laying off or otherwise punishing employees because of their sexual orientation. Instead of passing a bill supporting our troops, they hid behind our troops in opposing LGBT Americans. In doing this, the Majority placed the welfare of our troops in jeopardy, potentially robbing them of much needed resources, and undermined protections for LGBT employees of federal contractors created by a Presidential Executive Order. As I stated earlier, this was a difficult vote to cast. However, I also know that this was the correct vote to cast. This body should not be risking national security nor sanctioning discrimination. I urge the Republican Majority to delete this language in a House- Senate conference. They should not play politics with our national security.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, today and this week we will debate the national defense authorization. This is part of our most fundamental obligation as Members of Congress, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. However, there is a provision that is inserted into this bill that doesn't protect and defend--it discriminates. It is a provision in this bill that would effectively stop an executive order that says that Federal contractors cannot discriminate against employees because they happen to be LGBT. I want to say this again. In the defense authorization, House Republicans have inserted a provision to empower and enable the discrimination of LGBT employees. That is not protecting and defending. That is discrimination. That is divisive. It is disgusting. Our job is to protect and defend the American people and not inject the defense budget with ideologies that are based on protecting a political base, Mr. Speaker. It is a disservice to our troops, and it is a disservice to our national security to inject such poisonous language into a defense budget that is meant to protect and defend the constitutional rights of the American people.

Mr. ISRAEL

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense, bipartisan amendment that I think will have significant impact on the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program. I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) for working with me on this. This amendment basically would direct the Attorney General, when awarding grants, to consider the prevalence of opioid abuse and opioid- related overdoses in a community. The underlying legislation already properly ensures an equitable geographic distribution of funds. This amendment simply makes sure that the areas hardest hit by the epidemic are getting the resources that they need. I happen to represent Suffolk County on Long Island in New York. We have suffered with more opioid and related deaths than any other county in my State. Between 2009 and 2013, 334 people lost their lives to heroin or opioids. By comparison, Brooklyn, which has 1 million more residents, had only one-half the number of opioid deaths in the same time. Treatment admissions for opioid addiction on Long Island rose from 12,887 in 2010 to 16,681 in 2014. That is a 29 percent increase. These are percentages and statistics, Mr. Chairman, and all of us in this body know how this epidemic is affecting real lives. Just over 2 weeks ago I met with students from Half Hollow Hills High School West's One World Youth Organization. I met with a young woman named Alexa Wasser. She shared with me that her brother, Zachary Wasser, died of an overdose in January at 23 years old. He was friendly. He was outgoing. He loved to spend time with his family. He was a good kid who got caught up in an epidemic that is impacting way too many Long Island families and way too many American families, so much so that they have nicknamed the Long Island Expressway the ``Heroin Highway.'' Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the Wassers and for the hundreds of Long Island families whose lives have changed forever, I urge support for my amendment and I urge passage of the underlying bill. I again want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation and support for this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I again want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma, and the gentleman from West Virginia for their cooperation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the National Collegiate Honors Council on their 50th Anniversary. NCHC is devoted to educational excellence, serving over 800 colleges and universities and 325,000 students in varying disciplines across the nation. Two institutions of higher education in my district are NCHC members, Long Island University and SUNY College at Old Westbury. Long Island University boasts academically talented students from each corner of our country studying in an array of majors. The Long Island University Honors Program offers high achieving students the opportunity to focus on a multitude of topics as they prepare themselves for professional careers and postgraduate studies. SUNY Old Westbury's Honors College is more than just academics. The Honors College strives to ensure an enriched academic and social experience for its members and to create an environment that fosters active and innovative learning. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Long Island University, SUNY Old Westbury and the National Collegiate Honors Council for their outstanding contributions to our nation's educational and professional communities.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, this morning I intend to comment on middle class budgets. But, before that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just very briefly reflect on a trip I just took to visit with our troops in the Middle East, in Iraq and elsewhere. I have been to Iraq about 10 times. I think one of the fundamental responsibilities we have, as Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, is not just to talk about supporting our troops, but to go into the theater, visit with them, and learn firsthand the challenges they face. Every time I visit with our troops, when I come back, I think the same thing: that we are so blessed to live in a country that gives us the right to agree with the decision to put people in harm's way, we have the right to disagree with that decision, and we have the right to remain silent, but no American has the right to forget even for a day the sacrifices that those men and women are making for us every single day. We owe them our support and our awareness for the work that they do and, more importantly, supporting their families who are here and supporting our troops when they return as veterans. Mr. Speaker, Friday, April 15, is a day of two deadlines. That is the deadline most Americans know by which they must pay their Federal income taxes. Everybody understands that deadline, and Americans don't have a choice but to comply with that deadline. The other deadline is that that is the day by which Congress must pass a budget, and it is up to the Republican majority to produce that budget and bring that budget to the floor for a vote. Unfortunately, the Republican majority will miss that deadline and fail the American people in our fundamental responsibility to earn our pay by passing budgets. That is what we are put here to do: to debate priorities and pass budgets; yet, this deadline will be missed. Failing to pass a budget by the deadline is a fundamental failure to the American people. I will say, however, that, in this case, a missed budget may be a little better than the bad budget that Republicans have originally proposed. It is a budget that fundamentally fails the middle class. It is a budget, as proposed, that gets rid of the Medicare guarantee. It is a budget, as proposed, that slashes $6.5 trillion in fundamentally important priorities to the middle class in making sure that their kids are well educated, making sure that we are rebuilding America with infrastructure and trying to reduce traffic jams, rebuilding our bridges and our tunnels, and modernizing our airports. It is a budget that undermines the middle class. It is a budget that fails the middle class. Now, I understand the need for us to reduce spending, and I have supported significant reductions in spending in my time in Congress. But what this budget does is it takes away from the middle class in order to further enrich the most powerful: the special interests. That is why people are so angry out there. They understand that Washington has to do more with less, but not give more to people who already have the most. That is what the Republican budget does. That is the architecture of spending tax dollars that must be paid by April 15. You take away from the middle class and you give more to people who are doing pretty well already, people who are doing so well that they can hire all sorts of friends to do their work here in Washington and maybe even contribute to some super-PACs. I think that is wrong. People are angry because not only are our priorities wrong, but they see very little evidence of a Congress, under Republican leadership in the Senate and the House, that is doing its job. They are angry because the Republican Senate won't even debate and vote on a Supreme Court nomination. You can vote for it. You can vote against it. They won't even vote on that nomination. That is a failure to do the job that they are paid to do. They are angry because the majority here in the House of Representatives won't do their job and pass a budget. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, maybe no budget is better than a bad budget, but both represent failure for the American people. The Pew Research Center did a study just several weeks ago that said that, for the first time since the Depression, to be in the middle class in America is to be in the minority. About 49 percent of Americans are in the middle class. The rest are either richer or poorer. An economy grows best when the middle class is strongest. We need to fulfill our responsibility to that middle class by doing what they will pay us to do on April 15: just do our jobs and pass a budget that invests in their growth, in their families, in their children, and, as I opened, invests in our troops, our national security, and makes sure that every veteran in America is taken care of. Those are the priorities we have in our budgets.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of February as National Marfan Awareness Month and to pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are living with Marfan syndrome and related connective tissue disorders. I am proud to represent the nation's foremost organization working to support the Marfan community, The Marfan Foundation, based in Port Washington, New York. The Foundation was founded in 1981 by Priscilla Ciccariello, a woman of tremendous compassion and vision. Since then, The Marfan Foundation has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of individuals affected by Marfan syndrome and related connective tissue disorders by advancing research, raising awareness, and providing support. It is estimated that 200,000 people in the United States are affected by Marfan syndrome or a related condition. Marfan syndrome is a genetic disorder of the connective tissue that can affect many areas of the body, including the heart, eyes, skeleton, lungs and blood vessels. It is a progressive condition and can cause deterioration in each of these body systems. The most serious and life-threatening aspect of the syndrome is a weakening of the aorta. The aorta is the largest artery carrying oxygenated blood from the heart. Over time, many Marfan syndrome patients experience a dramatic weakening of the aorta which can cause the vessel to dissect and tear. Aortic dissection is a leading killer in the United States, and 20% of the people it affects have a genetic predisposition, like Marfan syndrome, to developing the complication. If patients receive an early and accurate diagnosis, the disease process can be slowed. However, due to a lack of education and awareness, physicians often do not diagnose a patient until an adverse cardiac event occurs. High school athletes represent the most alarming group of individuals affected by adverse cardiac events, with an estimated incidence of once or twice per week. The inadequate health screening of athletes contributes annually to the untimely deaths of many young adults, especially those affected by structural cardiovascular abnormalities, such as Marfan syndrome. A recent example of the need for consistent cardiovascular screening guidelines is Isaiah Austin, who was diagnosed with Marfan syndrome when entering the National Basketball Association (NBA) Draft and thus previously unaware that he was at risk for sudden cardiac death during his entire scholastic basketball career. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me and The Marfan Foundation in raising awareness of this life-threatening disorder so we can prevent future unnecessary tragedies. I urge my colleagues to stand with me and reflect on what we can do to efficiently and effectively address this growing public health concern of health screenings for high school athletes. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to increase support for health screening programs in public and private high schools throughout the nation that aim to identify this silent enemy of our young athletes.

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. What a coincidence.

Mr. ISRAEL. What a coincidence this is. I want to thank my friend from California for his leadership in the Future Forum, traveling the country, engaging young people and millennials on the critical issue of participating in government. I don't qualify as a millennial.

Mr. ISRAEL. I am slightly older than most of the audiences that you engage. But I used to be a millennial. I used to be a young person. I grew up in Levittown, New York, on Long Island. I remember going to public school at Gardiners Avenue Elementary School and being taught civics, being taught what it takes to be a good citizen, and what our responsibilities and obligations were. The principal responsibility and the principal obligation of a good citizen was voting. You could vote to the left, you could vote to the right, but vote. Now we are falling further and further behind on voting because it has become harder and harder. There is a particular Republican candidate who talks about how we have to make America great again. Do you know what we are not so great at? We are not so great at voting. In fact, we are falling further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world. We are falling further and further behind most democracies in our voting participation. Why is that well? One reason is because we reserve one day of the year to vote in Federal elections, and that is Tuesday. I don't know if my friend knows--here is a little history quiz, a little pop quiz, to put him on the spot: Why do we vote on that Tuesday? Do you have any idea why we vote on that Tuesday?

Mr. ISRAEL. Here is the answer. In 1845, Congress decided that voting day would be on Tuesday in November. Why? Because at the time we were living in a mostly agrarian society, we were a farm economy, and Sunday was the Lord's day. The polling places were usually in the county seat, so Monday was the day that you traveled to the county seat. You got to your county seat on Tuesday, you cast your vote, you returned on Wednesday, and you farmed on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. That may have made sense in 1845, but it doesn't make the same sense in 2016. As a result of reserving this one Tuesday as voting day, most Americans report that they didn't vote because they just couldn't vote on Tuesday. Some people have two jobs, three jobs, and they are raising families. As important as it is to be a good citizen and to cast their vote, they are finding it harder and harder. The solution is very simple. I am going to make another quick comment. The solution is very simple. Allow people to vote on weekends. Designate Saturday and Sunday for voting. You can do it on a Saturday; you can do it on a Sunday. But we ought to designate weekend voting. There are other democracies in the world, other nations in the world, that have weekend voting, and their voting participation is much higher than ours. If there is one thing the government should do to make it more convenient for middle class citizens and working families, it is make it more convenient to vote, and we can do that on weekends. Let me make one other point if I could. I made a decision that I would not run for reelection. My decision was based on a broad range of personal issues and personal considerations, personal desires, to do other things. I have been here for 16 years. It is time to pass the torch. But I will tell you what. One of the factors was that I could not stand to spend one more day asking one more donor for one more dollar. We have a system that used to be dysfunctional. Now it is not dysfunctional. It is just beyond broken. It is a system that tells people around the country that their voices are drowned out. There is a sense--particularly among the young people that you have engaged across this country--that the only way you get heard in this place is if you have a super-PAC or a registered lobbyist with you. Most middle class families and most young people can't afford a super-PAC or a registered lobbyist. I am concerned that we have a majority right now that has made Congress a gated community. We need to bring down those gates. The way to bring down those gates is to pass campaign finance reform; it is to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which Democrats passed when we had the majority, requiring that people know who are funding elections; that we pass weekend voting so it is easier for people to cast their votes and choose their democracy, so that their democracy is not chosen by literally a few hundred families, by passing something that our colleague, John Sarbanes, talked about earlier: citizen-funded elections. If you want a stake in democracy and if you want to own democracy, you should have a share in that democracy. We ought to be encouraging citizen-funded elections, which are being done in States across the country--Republican states, Democratic States. They are embracing citizen-funded elections. We should be doing the same thing.