Chris Stewart

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit offered by the opposition today is one thing and one thing only, and that is an attempt to stop what is a reasonable and commonsense bill. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was taken aback, but I was not surprised by what I heard during today's debate. Contrary to what we just heard, no current member of the SAB can be a registered lobbyist. Mr. Grayson from Florida offered that as an amendment. We accepted that amendment. It is not a part of this bill. Asking for transparency is not gutting the EPA. Asking for public involvement is not gutting the EPA. You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to object to this bill for anything other than purely partisan reasons. If 60 percent of the members of the Science Advisory Board are receiving more than $140 million in direct government grants, then let's recognize that, and let's ask for transparency. If public comments are regularly ignored--if they are not even given the least or the barest of consideration--let's be honest, and let's try to fix that. If State, local, and industry experts are precluded from sitting and participating on these boards, then let's open the door for their participation and their experience. They have valuable expertise. We should take advantage of that. Transparency, public involvement, accountability--those are the only things that we are asking for in this bill. Improving balance and transparency in the EPA is not something that should be controversial. We should be able to agree to a balanced, a fair, and a transparent process. This bill is supported in its current form by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau--I could go on and on. There are more than 20 organizations that are supporting this bill. To my fellow Members, there are only two very simple choices to make here: stand up now and vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' on final passage. Let's make the EPA transparent. Let's make them accountable. Let's make them true to the science that they have vowed to defend. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, thank you for considering my bill, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2013, and I yield myself the balance of my time. To reiterate what has been said multiple times here, this legislation addresses how the EPA is systematically silencing voices of dissent on the Science Advisory Board, ignoring calls for independence and balanced participation, and preventing the board from responding to congressional requests. Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. However, when inconvenient scientific conclusions are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible, and that is certainly what we have seen. The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act addresses these shortcomings by strengthening public participation and public comment opportunities and improving the makeup of the Science Advisory Board and its subpanels. The bill reinforces peer review requirements and reduces conflicts of interest. It provides opportunities for the dissenting panelists to make their views known and requires communication of uncertainties and scientific findings and conclusions. The Science Advisory Board Reform Act promotes fairness, transparency, and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice. Surely, that is something that we could ask for the American people. Surely, that is something that the opposition could support. In fact, surely, that is something that the White House would support. With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yea'' vote on this matter, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the fight against cancer. Although there have been great medical strides made over the years, it is sobering to think that today, in this nation, someone will die of cancer every 60 seconds. That is a terrible outcome, and we need to remain vigilant in our fight to eradicate this awful disease. It is true that much has been done in recent decades to extend lives, to save lives, and to improve the lives of individuals who have cancer, but still there is much more that we can do. Patients are still being denied access to innovative treatments for reasons that have nothing to do with the effectiveness of a treatment and everything to do with the fact that we are studying, regulating, and paying for new cancer drugs in the same way we did 50 years ago. In the face of the Ebola crisis, the federal government and healthcare organizations have reduced regulatory barriers in order to reduce the time required to get new medicines to patients from six years to less than two. We owe it to cancer patients to allow them the same rapid access to these treatments, particularly when it might be their only hope of survival. In particular, there are three at least policy objectives we should be pursuing: (1) to direct the FDA to approve new life-extending drugs for cancer once Phase I studies show a high response rate; (2) to encourage programs that provide early detection and identification of genetic mutations that are known to increase cancer risks; and (3) to require that the FDA accelerate access to experimental treatments for patients who have run out of treatment options or are excluded from clinical trials. These are critical policy goals that must be considered by Congress. There is no doubt that some minds at the FDA may be difficult to change. But I believe that difficulty cannot be compared to the life and death decisions that our citizens and their families and friends face when access to the innovative cancer therapies that provide their best or only chance to save, prolong and improve their lives remains out of reach because of our lack of action. This is a challenge we can meet, and I'm optimistic that we will.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. I thank the chairman for yielding the time. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of serving for 14 years as a pilot in the Air Force, flying both combat rescue helicopters and the B-1, an aircraft which, by the way, has dropped a disproportionate amount of the ordnance on Afghanistan and Iraq. I have spent weeks traveling through the area, meeting with various leaders. I have listened to this debate, and I have tried to weigh all sides while we look for a solution to a very difficult problem in an impossibly difficult part of the world, and, even now, it is with reluctance that I am willing to stand and take a stance in support of this amendment, but I have simply reached the conclusion that we have no other choice. In meeting with President el-Sisi or Prime Minister Netanyahu or King Abdullah or Foreign Ministers and military leaders, what we heard was nearly universal: Where is the United States? Can we count on you to stand by your allies and your friends? This fight, this battle against ISIS that our President so reluctantly calls a war is a generational battle. I believe it is the defining battle of our lifetime. We cannot afford to waffle. We have been doing that for far too long now. Yes, this is a terrible situation. There are no good options. All we have are messy and conflicted options, each of which has their own dangers, but this much is true: there is one very worse option, and that is to do nothing. We may not trust some of the Syrian rebels. I distrust ISIS even more. We may not like some of the leaders we have to align with. Some of them may prove to be unreliable, but nothing and no one represents more of a threat. To those who are unwilling to support this amendment, I would ask you: How can you justify doing nothing? That is the only option that we have been given. Do nothing, or do this.

Mr. STEWART. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our friends and our allies in the region to step up and lead. After months, even years of inaction, the President is finally doing that. I wish that we were doing more. I wish that we were doing more, but this is the only option that we have been given, and we must at least do this.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, we live in a very dangerous world. It seems like there is chaos and darkness all around us. As a former Air Force pilot, I have seen the results of abusive power in a very real way. It seems like every time we turn on the television or we read the news, we get the feeling that the world is being turned upside down. The wheels have come off the train and we seem to be careening towards the cliff: Russia takes Crimea and then sends un-uniformed troops into eastern Ukraine; tens of thousands of deaths in Syria, with millions of refugees; the recent evacuation of our own Embassy in Libya; Iran working toward a nuclear weapon; ISIS in Iraq creating essentially a terrorist state; the crisis of Chinese power threatening significant parts of the Eastern world. The list of concerns is very long, indeed. But nowhere is the strife and uncertainty more dangerous, more strategic, and more critical to U.S. interests than what we are witnessing in Israel and their military operations in Gaza. Israel is the most important ally in the region that we have. It has the only democratically elected government in a very unstable and violent part of the world. It has a vibrant, free capitalistic society that respects human rights, that respects women's rights, that respects minority rights, even the religious minorities. Let me say this as clearly and as unambiguously as I can: Israel is our friend and our ally. So tonight we stand with Israel and state without equivocation that Israel has a right to defend itself. Let me set the stage for the crisis that is happening right now, very quickly. September 2005: Israel withdraws from Gaza Strip, home to some 1.8 million people. Thousands of Israelis are uprooted and missile fire from Gaza into Israel increases dramatically. A few short months later, in January 2006, Hamas deposes Fatah, wins elections, and becomes the ruling party of Gaza. The United States, Britain, and all the European Union consider Hamas a terrorist organization. June 2007: Hamas seizes power in Gaza with Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. Skipping ahead now to May 2014: rocket attacks from Gaza to Israel increase. June 12, 2014: Three Israeli teenagers are kidnapped and killed on the West Bank. The PA aids Israel Defense Forces in clamping down on Hamas in the West Bank and tension increases significantly. As a result of that, Hamas unleashes hundreds of rockets in Israel. Finally, July 7, 2014: the Israel Defense Forces launch Operation Protective Edge. Its goal is to stop the insistent rocket attacks in Israel. Within a week, they expand to an offensive ground war. Its purpose is to destroy Hamas tunnels built for military use against Israel. Now, we will talk more about these tunnels, but let me mention just briefly that, to date, Israel has uncovered more than 66 access shafts to 30 tunnels. Palestinian militants have fired, to date, more than 2,000 rockets since the fighting began on July 8. Let me put that in perspective before I turn the time over to some of my colleagues. Imagine, if you will, that al Qaeda or ISIS in Iraq has pledged the destruction of the U.S., something which is not hard to imagine. Now imagine they placed a military frigate off our eastern shore. Now, they claim that it is a supply ship, they say that it has no military purpose, that it only has civilian and peaceful purposes. But then imagine they start lobbing not a few and not dozens, but hundreds of rockets and missiles along our eastern shore, specifically targeting cities where millions of innocent families live. What would we do? What should we do. Would you expect your government, your President, to protect you? Of course, we would. We would defend ourselves. We would seek the elimination of the threat. We would protect our own people, our values, our way of life. Any Nation would, and every Nation should be able to do that. That is all the State of Israel is asking: the right to defend itself. That is why we are here tonight, to defend a friend and ally against not only missiles and rockets, but against an onslaught of deception in the world of public opinion. We want our friends in Israel to know that they do not stand alone. I have invited some of my friends and colleagues to share the floor with me this evening as we stand firm and united in the defense of Israel and their right to protect themselves. I would like to begin with my colleague Dr. Wenstrup from Ohio. He is a fellow veteran, he has served in the Army Reserves since 1989, and served a tour in Iraq. He sits on the House Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I yield to Dr. Wenstrup.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup. Next, I would like to yield to Mr. Steve King, a colleague and gentleman from Iowa. Mr. King sits on the Agriculture, Small Business, and Judiciary Committees, and he has always been a strong defender of Israel.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. King. Mr. King mentioned the tunnels. I would like to illustrate this, if I could, and just interject very quickly. This is a photograph of the tunnels. These aren't dark 2-foot holes dug into the ground. These are sophisticated, expensive, complicated contraptions that have been put together--30 tunnels, not including the more than two dozen that were discovered prior to Operation Protective Edge. They run for miles. They are dug more than 60 feet beneath the ground, so that they avoid seismic detection. Some of them are large enough that you can drive a vehicle through them. You think: What is their purpose? Is it to smuggle men, weapons, or material? It is to in some cases, unfortunately, smuggle and hide those who have been captured and are being kidnapped. Hamas operatives have been intercepted emerging from the tunnels with tranquilizers and handcuffs--obviously, to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Once again, how much better would the situation have been for the citizens of Gaza if these resources and this money had been diverted? Instead of building tunnels, build infrastructure and schools and hospitals and other things that the citizens there could use. Thank you, Mr. King, for your comments. I would like now to yield to my good friend, Mr. Daines from Montana. He is a successful businessman who sits on the Homeland Security, Natural Resources, and Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittees.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Daines, I agree that we must stand with Israel. All of us here tonight agree that we must stand with Israel. I now yield to my colleague and good friend, Mrs. Hartzler from Missouri.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. We have so many people who want to join in this conversation tonight. We are grateful for many of those who participated. It is my honor to yield to Mr. Engel, who represents New York, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Sir, we are glad to have you with us.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Engel. Thank you for your service on the Foreign Affairs Committee. You bring up such a great point. This is a bipartisan issue. There is agreement on both sides of the aisle. We have got servicemembers, military members, school teachers, and businessmen. We have got people from all backgrounds who want to speak on this tonight. Frankly, we have got more people who want to join in this Special Order than we have time for. I would like to now yield to Mr. Collins from Georgia. He has a unique perspective as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee as well. He served as a chaplain in the Air Force since 2002 and a combat tour in Iraq in 2008. Mr. Collins, thank you for your service.

Mr. STEWART. I thank you for your comments and for your support, Mr. Collins. I now am happy to introduce the newest Member of Congress, Mr. Clawson from Florida.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Clawson. We look forward to serving with you in the future, and we, once again, welcome you. It is now my honor to introduce my good friend and someone I have come to respect and admire, Mrs. Walorski from Indiana. She is the daughter of an Air Force veteran and serves on the House Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs Committees.

Mr. STEWART. We thank you, Mrs. Walorski. Beautifully said. I now would like to introduce someone I have come to have tremendous respect for. He brings not only a unique perspective but great experience to this question as chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. He is also a U.S. Army Vietnam veteran; although, he appears to be far too young for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield to you.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Chairman Frelinghuysen, for your comments and for your leadership. It is now my honor to introduce Mr. Lance from New Jersey. He served for many years in the New Jersey State Legislature and now serves on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Lance. As the manager of this Special Order, I have to be prepared to fill the time if we need to, to fill any gaps in the conversation, and very clearly that has not been necessary tonight. We have so many eloquent Members who are anxious and are stating this case so powerfully. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), who also serves on the Armed Services Committee and Judiciary Committee and is also chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Franks. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), a good friend of mine, someone, once again, that I have come to respect greatly. For one thing, he is a colonel in the Army National Guard. I was only a major when I separated from the Air Force, so, of course, I salute him every time I see him. He sits on the Homeland Security and also Foreign Affairs Committees.

Mr. STEWART. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Once again, I have the honor of yielding to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bentivolio), a Member with a unique background, who, while stationed in Iraq with the Michigan Army National Guard, he, himself, experienced rocket attacks. This happened on a regular basis, so I think he speaks with some authority on the subject tonight.

Mr. STEWART. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. He has stated it, once again, like many others, very powerfully. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion tonight, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who, once again, as a senior member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, has great experience and is unquestionably like many of us, a strong supporter of Israel.

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, that was powerfully said. In conclusion, as we wind down our time tonight, let me just finalize with these thoughts. There is a great line from a speech that would have been given by John F. Kennedy in November 1963 if he had been allowed to give that speech before he was assassinated. And he said: ``This people, this generation, not by choice, but by destiny, are set to be the watchmen on the wall of world freedom.'' We may not like the fact that we have to lead in the world. We may not like the responsibility. We may not like the cost. We may not like the hassle or the criticism or sometimes the hatred that is directed toward us. But it doesn't matter. We have to lead. If we don't do it, who will? If we don't lead, we give power to our enemies, and we weaken our friends. We have a chance here tonight to make a statement to the world. To the people of Israel, we stand by your side. To the peace-loving people of Gaza, we stand with you as well. But to the terrorists who seek for the destruction of Israel and to the leaders of Hamas who seek only for death and destruction, we, the American people, will always stand in your way. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4315 is simply a no-brainer. Its primary purpose is to require that ESA be available to the public. This is nothing but a commonsense reform in the application of a law that is subject to extensive bureaucratic manipulation. Some opponents wrongly assume that the American people don't need to see this data, but how can anyone argue against transparency in our Federal Government? Let me quickly list an example in my district. We have the Utah prairie dog, a species that was listed under the ESA in 1973. U.S. Fish and Wildlife says there needs to be at least 1,500 prairie dogs before they can be considered for delisting as recovered, but the Federal Government only counts those dogs living on Federal lands, about 442 of them. In 2013, there were almost 5,000 of these prairie dogs living on private land that went uncovered. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 4256, the Endangered Species Improvement Recovery Act, something which would help in this effort as well. H.R. 4315 is a commonsense approach, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for giving me 1 minute to speak on this. I was an Air Force pilot for 14 years. I flew for 7 years as a combat rescue helicopter pilot. We flew and exercised with the A-10s all the time. I also flew for 7 years the B-1. We were tasked with this mission of close air support. I am not here because I have A-10s in my district. I am here because I realize what an invaluable resource this is. Close air support is an incredibly delicate and unforgiving mission. If you hit the wrong bridge, people will forgive you. If you frag your own troops, you will never forgive yourself. It is best done by an aircraft that is low and slow, that has superb communications and superb visibility. There is nothing that is as good as the A-10 is in this mission. I know that from my own experience. That is why I rise and stand in support of this very important amendment.

Mr. STEWART

Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I am recorded as voting ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 254, an amendment by Mr. Moran that would facilitate closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by allowing the transfer of those dangerous detainees, who were captured on the battlefield in the war on terror, to be transferred to the United States of America. Mr. Speaker on this vote I was misrecorded. I duly intended to vote ``no'' on rollcall No. 254.