Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Veterans Benefit and Transition Act of 2018. Frankly, it is always a good feeling to be able to speak for commonsense legislation put together in a bipartisan fashion for the good of America's veterans.

In particular, I welcome the inclusion of section 504, the Veterans Fair Debt Notice Act. I introduced this last year in response to frustrations veterans have been experiencing with the VA's debt management system. It incorporates some refinements made in the Senate companion bill introduced by Senator Deb Fischer, which demonstrates the bipartisan nature of this effort.

The legislation improves the way that veterans are notified about debts that they may owe from the VA benefits program. Because of the VA's failure to notify or due to confusingly worded letters or letters that actually just never reach the vet, many veterans in Maine and elsewhere are shocked to learn that they owe debts, and for many, they have missed the deadlines to dispute or seek forgiveness for the alleged debt.

This bill directs the VA to work with veterans service organizations to develop standard notification notices that are written in plain language that anyone can understand and it also allows veterans to receive notices electronically.

To promote accountability, the bill requires the VA to report to Congress on the new standard and on the VA's efforts to reduce the number of errors in its debt notification system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Roe and Ranking Member Walz for their work in support, and I urge passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th running of an important annual event in my state that highlights the comeback of an American icon.

In 1969, Dick Anderson led his first trip for Maine Audubon to try to spot bald eagles in Maine's Merrymeeting Bay. At the time, it was the last accessible place in the entire state to see a nesting pair--a result of the terrible toll the pesticide DDT had taken on the nation's bald eagle population, which had dwindled to just over 400 pairs in the continental U.S. in the 1960s.

Anderson continued to bring people to Merrymeeting Bay annually. In the early years, they were lucky to see one or two eagles. But as a national ban on DDT, the Endangered Species Act, and other environmental laws did their work, these trips yielded more birds every year. As Maine Audubon continues the annual tradition--holding its 50th cruise this month--participants can now expect to see at least 50 bald eagles.

What a sight it is to see these great birds soar high in the air, dive to snatch a fish from the water, or perch upon their massive nests. It's astonishing to think how close we came to losing this living symbol of our nation. This species' recovery from the brink of extinction is an amazing success story for federal environmental protections.

But this story is not yet over. I'm afraid a new chapter is now being written as efforts are underway, both in Congress and under the current Administration, to weaken the Endangered Species Act and other protections. Now is not the time to undo the progress we have made. In fact, with climate change and other environmental threats before us, we need these laws more than ever--not just for bald eagles, but also for the hundreds of wildlife species that remain on the threatened and endangered lists.

Again, I congratulate Maine Audubon on its 50th eagle trip and commend Dick Anderson and other conservation leaders for protecting the incredible natural resources in my state. I hope these trips continue to see more and more bald eagles every year--because that would mean we are still doing our job in Washington to responsibly steward the lands, waters, and wildlife that are in our trust.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Arts in Education Week. I believe strongly that arts in our schools, whether it is visual art, music, drama, creative writing, or dance, are as much of a component of a well-rounded education as STEM or humanity subjects.

The measurable benefits of a robust arts education are clear. The U.S. Department of Education has found that students in arts programming had better attendance and fewer disciplinary issues. But anyone who has experienced arts education knows that its value goes well beyond what's measurable. It builds confidence, teaching students how to express themselves in front of their peers and the larger community.

It promotes diversity and inclusion, encouraging kids to engage with and learn from creative traditions that they may not be familiar with. And it can start important conversations, using fun and accessible mediums to get us thinking about hard topics.

I thank the educators and students in Maine and across the country who commit to bringing the power of the arts into our schools and homes every day.

Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the House Cut Flower Caucus, I rise today in recognition of July as American Grown Flower Month.

Every year, U.S. consumers spend billions of dollars on cut flowers, but I think most would be surprised to hear that just 20 percent of these flowers are grown in the United States. The vast majority are imported from Colombia and other countries in South America and Africa.

The U.S.-grown flower industry has shrunk considerably in the last 30 years, but recently it has had a resurgence. As consumers have bought more food from local farmers, they have begun to ask where their flowers come from as well.

The growth in consumer interest has been an opportunity for many farmers I represent to diversify and boost their income. For example, Broadturn Farm in my district has had so much success selling flowers that it now has four acres under cultivation and even offers a flower Consumer Supported Agriculture, or CSA, share.

So, this month, I ask my fellow consumers to ask themselves an important question before their next flower purchase: What better way to celebrate a wedding, offer condolences, or show your appreciation than with flowers that are not only beautiful but also meaningful in their connection to the places where they grow and the people who grow them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. But as my colleague from Massachusetts said, this isn't really a bill. It is a press release. It is a love note to the fossil fuel industry.

We should have an open rule on the floor for this resolution so that we can talk about the real issues around climate change, so that we can talk about the effects of a changing growing season and the effects of extreme weather on our farms and fishing communities, so that we can talk about sea level rise and ocean acidification on our coastal communities, so that we can talk about the impacts of changing climates on health and healthcare costs.

We are seeing these problems in my home State and in the Gulf of Maine, in particular, where the water is warming at a rate 90 percent faster than the rest of the world. We don't know what impact that will have on the lobsters, groundfish, and future fisheries, but the fishermen are worried, and we are already starting to see the changes.

We are putting our heads in the sand if we just do nothing, if we keep supporting fossil fuels, and if we keep preventing even a simple debate on the costs of carbon and possible climate solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and oppose this bill.

Madam Chair, I thank Ranking Member Lowey for yielding me the time.

Madam Chair, I rise today as a member of the subcommittee in reluctant opposition to the bill before us. I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman for their hard work on this bill. I know that, in a truly bipartisan fashion, there has been an effort to address many issues that are important to me and to other Members.

For example, I appreciate that the committee has come together to fund a National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities at strong levels that will help support our local economies and protect important cultural institutions.

But the truth of the matter is that we will be voting on numerous amendments tonight that will add poison pill riders to the bill. They will gut our environmental protections and act as a straightforward assault on our country's air, water, and Federal lands.

The fact that so many of these harmful amendments were made in order by the Rules Committee is a telling statement of misplaced priorities. But even

more telling are the amendments that were not made in order. None of the amendments to protect our oceans was made in order. Not one of the 10 amendments offered to prevent the devastation of our oceans due to oil and gas drilling off our coasts was made in order.

We had Members from both sides of the aisle offering these amendments. We had Members from all across the country offering these amendments, and not one was allowed for full House debate, neither was an amendment I offered to push the administration on distributing appropriated funding that it has sat on without reason.

This administration created guidance for the Department of the Interior in December of last year, which added another layer of bureaucracy and review for already-approved projects. How ironic that a Republican administration would actually be purposefully adding bureaucracy that they so often rail against.

This has led to an unconscionable delay in getting funds out to the communities in Texas, Florida, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico that have been impacted by natural disasters, as well as other projects not related to hurricane relief.

As we enter our second month of the current hurricane season, our American citizens have yet to see the full relief that they are owed and that this Congress has provided for them. That is because of this administration's unnecessary delays.

Again, I know the work that has gone into the creation of this bill with funding levels from many programs that are vital in my home State of Maine. In Maine, we have a strong appreciation for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Geological Survey. We love estuaries, wildlife refuges, and National parks, like the beloved Acadia National Park in Maine and our new Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument. This funding is critical, and I am proud to be on the subcommittee that funds all of these national treasures and vital programs.

But because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will spend the next few hours attempting to gut the Clean Air Act, eliminate the EPA methane rule, restrict the Endangered Species Act, zero out funds for diesel emissions reduction, and ban even the discussion of the cost of carbon in our Nation, I will not be able to support this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.

Mr. Chair, while I appreciate the request made is intended to correct an inadvertent drafting error, I am concerned that granting the gentleman's request would legitimize a double standard being applied to unanimous consent requests here on the House floor.

For example, during consideration of the defense appropriation bill 3 weeks ago, Congresswoman Jackson Lee sought to obtain a unanimous consent to correct just this sort of innocent drafting error in her amendment. The majority informed us that, while they had no problem trying to fix the error in some other less direct manner later in the process, they would object to doing so by unanimous consent.

More importantly, just today, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee asked for and could not get unanimous consent to consider a resolution endorsing Speaker Ryan's own statement rebuking the President's statements in Helsinki in which the President said that he takes the Russians' word over that of the U.S. intelligence community, and refused to condemn the Russians' attacks on our democracy.

If Democrats can't even get unanimous consent for that, endorsing a statement by the Speaker of the House, it starts to look like a partisan double standard for giving unanimous consent.

Mr. Chair, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I too rise to speak in opposition to this amendment.

The NEA and the NEH have strong, bipartisan support on this committee, and I had really hoped the days of attacking these agencies were behind us. Maybe they seem like a good political target for those who don't understand the ways the arts and humanities affect our daily lives, but the economic benefits are undeniable for big cities, small towns, and everywhere in between.

The arts and culture industry contributes $764 billion to our economy every year, and the endowments are uniquely positioned to help smaller, rural areas, as you heard the Chair say, access that energy in a way that private capital can't or won't. And efforts to reach underserved communities are just as important.

NEA's Creative Forces program helps servicemembers and veterans manage TBI and PTSD through arts therapy. A cut would majorly impact the program's reach.

Similarly, NEH has funded the popular veterans book clubs that use literature that help process experiences in our military. I have been lucky to talk to some participants, and this is a deeply meaningful program that, again, is in jeopardy if this proposed cut moves forward.

Frankly, all of this comes at a very small price tag. The NEA and NEH use minimal Federal investments.

I will just end by saying this is an important way to create jobs, support families, and sustain communities in every Congressional district.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his eloquent defense of our oceans, and also for yielding me the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 200.

I represent the great State of Maine, with a rich maritime heritage, strong fisheries, and vibrant coastal communities that I am very proud to represent.

The hardworking men and women who earn their livings on or near the water in my State have been working for decades to follow the Magnuson- Stevens Act and Federal fishery policy. They are responsible stewards of our ocean resources. And while the current law could certainly be improved, it has been successful in allowing Mainers and others to support their families while restoring and preserving the health of their fisheries. They want to pass this maritime heritage on to the next generation, and I am afraid this bill would make that task even harder for them.

The bill before us today, therefore, is a big disappointment to me because it misses the opportunity to update the Magnuson-Stevens Act. By reauthorizing Magnuson, we could work in a bipartisan way to address the current needs of our fisheries and provide more flexibility. We could bring Federal policy further into the 21st century.

This bill is the wrong approach for addressing fishery management. It weakens rebuilding requirements, creates loopholes in some conservation efforts, and has the effect of decreasing accountability that has been put in place to prevent overfishing.

H.R. 200 undoes efforts that have been proven to work, while failing to address some significant challenges in our fisheries. It is a lost opportunity and a bill that I cannot support.

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, with whom I feel very privileged to work, for allowing me this time. I rise tonight in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, first I want to say, I have the utmost respect for the many sponsors of this amendment, and particularly Mr. Wittman and Mr. Courtney. They have shown tremendous bipartisan support and leadership in their tireless support of the Navy. They are excellent in their roles on their committees, and I consider them both great colleagues and friends.

However, this amendment is the wrong way to support our Navy. The amendment would cut $1 billion in funding from a variety of extremely important Navy and Air Force programs to fund advanced procurement for two Virginia-class submarines.

While they have made an excellent case about how important strategically those submarines are--and I agree with them on that--the problem is that one of them will be the DDG 51 program, which is supported at Bath Iron Works.

I am proud to be from Maine and to have Bath Iron Works and their excellent workforce in my district. The men and women of Bath Iron Works have been proving the adage ``Bath Built is Best Built'' for decades, and I oppose any efforts to cut from the DDG 51 program.

My colleagues have said that this amendment is funded by potential multiyear procurement savings in future years in the targeted the programs and, therefore, we should take that funding from these programs now. But the rationale ignores critical military and defense needs and the budgets that have been agreed upon.

The amendment will abandon several agreed-upon key national defense priorities, including increasing the ships in our Navy, a critical priority. Ships that I am proud to say are being manufactured, designed, and engineered by many hardworking men and women in my district.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as Representative for Maine's 1st Congressional District, I rise to mark a historic occasion in my home state. Today is the official ribbon cutting of the newly built Sarah Mildred Long Bridge.

This span is one of three critical connections between Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and Kittery, Maine. Its predecessor, built in 1940, carried thousands of people between our states every day, bore a rail line used to refuel submarines at the Navy's Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and lifted to make way for marine traffic on the mighty Piscataqua River.

Retired after 76 years, that structure did these jobs well. But the one dedicated today is designed to do them even better and last an incredible 125 years. It was built by the hardworking men and women of Maine company Cianbro Corp., with the oversight of the Maine Department of Transportation and its counterparts at the New Hampshire Department of Transportation. It should be noted that a $25 million grant from the federal Transportation Infrastructure Generating Economic Recovery program helped bring the costs of this sizeable project within reach.

A time capsule bearing this statement, along with other mementos of 2018, will be buried with instructions to open in 125 years. Until then, may this bridge serve our communities well and bear current and future generations of travelers safely to their destinations.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed H.R. 8, the Water Resources Development Act, which I proudly voted for.

I want to lend my voice in support of this bill and its importance to the State of Maine, which has critical ports and harbors up and down our coastline.

In particular, I want to call attention to a previously authorized WRDA program in Saco, Maine, known as Camp Ellis.

This project is considered remediation from a jetty that was built in the late 1800s by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The jetty has caused erosion and receding coastline that year by year and storm by storm has already washed out the ground from nearly 40 homes in the past 50 years.

The Army Corps and local community have been working for years on getting this project off the ground, and we are finally seeing some progress.

In the past year, there has been new energy around this, and I want to commend all the parties for their persistence and determination in getting this done.

A new WRDA can provide critical support for the storm-ravaged residents of Camp Ellis and help them rebuild.

As H.R. 8 and the other legislation moves from the House to the other body, I will continue to work with our chair, ranking member, and colleagues from Maine and the other body to get this accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 3 as well as the underlying bill. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I do not believe we should be retroactively taking back already approved funding to pay for tax cuts to corporations.

There are countless ludicrous provisions in this bill to cut rural housing, conservation, and other programs that support communities, farmers, and those in need. I would like to focus on one provision in H.R. 3 that is particularly upsetting because it would rescind over $14 million from USDA's Value Added Producer Grant program, one of the only USDA grants that go directly to farmers' pockets.

Let me be absolutely clear. Despite what the administration has said, these are funds that farmers have already applied for. Those applications were already under review by the USDA when the rescission package was introduced. Projects are ready to go and jobs are waiting to be created with this funding.

It makes me very angry to see that the administration's rescission proposal describes these grants as wasteful and specifically identifies a chocolate-covered peanut project as an example of alleged wasteful spending.

This is not about chocolate-covered peanuts. This is about helping farmers diversify their businesses and providing consumers with new products on which they are willing to spend a little extra.

Farmers are facing very challenging economic times, and I think we should be doing everything we can to support farmers in finding new markets, whether that is by processing milk to make yogurt, making jam from wild blueberries, or even coating peanuts in chocolate.

Ironically, on the same day that the administration released its rescission proposal, the USDA's Economic Research Service released a report on how successful VAPG has been. The report shows that businesses that receive VAPG funding provide more jobs for their communities and were less likely to fail than similar nonrecipient businesses. VAPG works. In Maine and across the country, a little support to farmers through VAPG can go a long way.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for H.R. 3 as well as the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time.

Now, every year, we have this battle. It is a battle to simply recognize the importance of our oceans and ocean planning. We have already learned about the fact that ocean planning works, and it is working already in New England and the mid-Atlantic; and instead of arguing hypotheticals about things that could happen, might happen, we should talk about the story of what actually happens in regions like mine where we live and work on the ocean.

The story of National Ocean Policy isn't national at all. It is about local control, local stakeholders, local input, and local decisionmaking.

In Maine, we have some great success stories of fishermen, lobstermen, Native American Tribes, local communities, and other stakeholders developing voluntary regional ocean plans. It is a great story of coordination among varied interests, all with the same goal of better understanding our oceans, protecting them, and working with them and in them.

By including those who work on and near the ocean, we are coordinating ocean activities for efficiency and coordination.

But the language in today's underlying bill would make it even more difficult for Federal agencies, for State agencies, and for local communities to work together on the future of our ocean resources.

Mr. Chairman, this rider has no place in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to strike it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize an outstanding educator from my District who has spent the past 43 years working as a band director in Maine's public schools.

Allen C. Graffam graduated from the University of Maine in 1975 and soon after, took a job at Brunswick High School. After eight years of service in Brunswick, Allen became band director at Mt. Ararat High School in Topsham, Maine. Since becoming band director in 1983, Allen has been an inspiration to his students and is greatly admired for his ability to listen, to advise, and to teach. Allen's leadership and dedication to educating in the classroom has prepared countless students to become important leaders in their communities.

In addition to his role as band director, Allen has also served as the Coach of the Girls' Softball team at Mt. Ararat High School. Allen's ability to fill multiple roles perfectly exemplifies his life long commitment to Maine students.

This June, Allen is retiring after 43 years of incredible service in Maine's public schools. Allen's nearly half a century as a band director and leader in our schools makes me very proud to represent him and the State of Maine in Congress. I wish Allen and his family the best in his retirement, and I wholeheartedly thank him for his many years as an educator in Maine's schools.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Mr. McGovern for yielding me the time and doing such a wonderful job on a very challenging bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the current version of the farm bill. There are many reasons why--among them, the unrealistic challenges to food assistance programs that will have a big negative impact on my State in Maine.

What I want to focus on in my limited time is how much this legislation does a disservice to the farmers in rural communities we represent.

The public is very clear. They want greater access to healthy, locally grown food. They want more of it grown organically, and they want to support local farmers in rural economies. But Federal policy is way behind the times, and this legislation would make it much worse.

Farmers aren't ignoring the trends that consumers are asking us for. They are capitalizing on them. In my State, the changing market and the demand for locally grown and organic food has reinvigorated the State's agriculture economy.

Josh Girard, who is pictured here, is one of those farmers. After earning a master's degree, working abroad in the Peace Corps, and apprenticing at local farms, Josh decided to return to his hometown to start his own farm.

The small sources of Federal support available to farmers like Josh pale in comparison to what commodity farmers receive, but it can make all of the difference.

For instance, Josh uses the Organic Certification Cost Share Programs to help cover the cost of certification, which helps him get more for his product. The funding for this and many other programs is endangered in this farm bill.

Over the next 5 years, consumers will continue to change their buying habits in our food system. The question is whether the Federal Government would make good policy to help farmers like Josh.

Ask anyone in this Chamber if they support rural America, and they will say, yes, absolutely. So I ask that we put our money where our mouths are.

We should send the message to those keeping our farming communities alive that we believe in their potential, we value their service, and we will help them succeed by voting down this terribly partisan legislation and start over on making a good bill.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Washington State for yielding me the time and for speaking against this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am sorry to say to my colleague from the other side of the aisle, we oppose this amendment,

which would remove money from the highly successful Value Added Producer Grant program.

The base text of this farm bill already removes all mandatory funding from VAPG. Now this amendment would make a bad situation worse by rescinding $8 million from VAPG.

The Value Added Producer Grant is one of the only grant programs that goes directly to farmers.

At a time when the farm economy is hurting, we should be helping farmers find new markets, not taking away opportunities to do so.

USDA's Economic Research Service released a new report earlier this month. Businesses that receive VAPG support are less likely to fail than nonrecipient businesses, and businesses that receive VAPG support also employ more workers than nonrecipient businesses.

This amendment would also exclude beer, wine, distilled spirits, and hard cider projects from being eligible for VAPG. It is completely arbitrary and foolish to restrict these products.

In my State of Maine, there has been an explosion of craft breweries, distilleries, and cideries that are contributing to the local economy.

Two years ago, Ricker Hill Orchards in Maine received VAPG money to increase production of hard cider and fruit wine. This provided the farmers with an opportunity to diversify revenue and reach new markets.

This may be a very small program, but it can make a big impact on farmers and rural communities in States like mine and across the country.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.