Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor a dear friend, Ernest ``Ernie'' DiPietro. Ernie passed away on April 24th at the age of 73. Ernie dedicated his life to public service, leaving behind a legacy in Cheshire, Connecticut that will never be forgotten.

Ernie was born in Chicago, Illinois on February 27, 1944. He graduated from Croft High School in Waterbury, before going on to earn his Bachelor's Degree at the University of New England, and his Master's Degree at the University of Hartford. Ernie proudly served our country in the U.S. Army Reserves during the Vietnam War. Reflecting his commitment to all who have served in the Armed Forces, Ernie served as American Legion Commander for Storrs Post 92 of Cheshire, enhancing the lives of our veterans, military, and their families, both at home and abroad.

A committed educator, Ernie taught for the Wolcott Public School System and was a member of the Mattatuck Community College faculty. Ernie will always be remembered by friends and family for his great passion for politics and the nearly three decades that he led the Cheshire Democratic Party. I am grateful for his many years of friendship and his guidance to me and so many others who have served our beloved town.

Ernie's involvement and leadership in numerous social organizations has made an immeasurable impact on the Cheshire community. Ernie was a co-marshal for Cheshire's Memorial Day parade, as well as an integral member of the Cheshire Veterans Council. Fellow member of the Cheshire Veterans Council, Leslie Marinaro, remembers Ernie's years of dedication fondly, stating, ``Ernie's footprint will remain forever in Cheshire and among our veterans.'' In addition, Ernie was active in many other organizations, including the Cheshire Kiwanis Club, Cheshire Land Trust, Cheshire Historical Society, and the Friends of Cheshire Library.

Ernie was also a devoted family man. He loved his wonderful wife of 46 years, Carol, who shared his passion for politics and public service. Ernie will also be missed by his brother-in-law, cousins, nephews, great-nieces and great-nephews, and his many friends.

I had the great fortune to know Ernie DiPietro and call him my friend. His warm heart, sense of humor, infectious smile, and love of life touched all who knew him. He truly left the world a better place.

Ernie's life embodied the spirit of civic engagement that strengthens our communities, and makes our country a better place. His contributions to the Town of Cheshire, the State of Connecticut, and to the United States of America will not be forgotten. Ernie, we love you and miss you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the so- called HONEST Act. Whether in its incarnation last Congress as the Secret Science Act or in this year's incarnation as the HONEST Act, let us be clear, this Orwellian-named bill is clearly designed to suppress certain scientific research that has been the foundation for essential health and environmental regulations.

In addition to hindering scientific advancement, this bill risks violating people's privacy by exposing sensitive patient data, and it is harmful to public health.

The clear aim of the HONEST Act is to undermine EPA's efforts to take action in a variety of areas, such as climate and air pollution.

Let me also be clear, in my State of Connecticut, we rely on those regulations to deal with the asthma crisis we have based on power plants in other parts of the country blowing polluted air into my State.

The so-called HONEST Act accomplishes this objective by excluding legitimate, peer-reviewed research from the policy process. If this bill were to become law, EPA would have no choice but to lean increasingly on industry-funded studies instead.

At my recent townhall meeting in Waterbury, Connecticut, one American after another stood up and expressed their fear and outrage at the attempts made in this House and by the new administration to take science out of public policy.

My constituents want genuine scientific research guiding our efforts to protect our environment and safeguard public health. They don't want agenda-driven studies funded by fossil fuel companies determining the EPA's actions on climate policy.

While the majority attempted to alleviate some of our privacy concerns with this bill, the reality is that any person whom EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt deems worthy will have access to sensitive patient information.

Why is this a problem?

Because fewer people will be willing to participate in the studies that are necessary to understand air and water quality issues.

Who can blame them?

No one wants their medical records shared with strangers, or worse, made public.

The result is that the EPA will have to rely on incomplete science to issue lifesaving regulations.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another example of the political crusade against science that we are seeing coming from both Congress and the new administration.

We should be confronting the economic and environmental realities of our changing climate. But just yesterday, President Trump issued an executive order that would have us pretend that climate change does not exist.

Only weeks earlier, the EPA Administrator himself said, without evidence, that he disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary contributor to global climate change.

In my home State of Connecticut, we are downwind from these power plants that are burning dirty coal. We see elevated rates of asthma, higher rates of cardiopulmonary issues. If this bill is passed, many longitudinal, scientific studies like the ones that establish the link between air pollution and asthma, would be excluded from playing a role in the EPA's actions.

Mr. Speaker, let's allow the EPA to do its job. I urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two letters in opposition from the Union of Concerned Scientists and from the Environmental Defense Fund.

Union of Concerned Scientists,

March 9, 2017.

Dear Representative: The Union of Concerned Scientists,

with 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country,

strongly opposes H.R. 1430, the misleadingly named Honest and

Open New EPA Science Treatment Act (HONEST Act) of 2017. The

proposal shows that supporters of this legislation have a

fundamental misunderstanding of the process by which science

operates and is ultimately a solution in search of a problem.

This legislation would require that all raw data, models,

code, and other materials from scientific studies be made

available to the public before a federal agency could use it.

But, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) already is

exhaustingly transparent and the science it relies on to make

decisions is made available to the public.

The true intention of this bill is not to increase

transparency in agency use of science in policymaking, but

rather to handcuff the EPA from ever using critical

information necessary to follow through on statutorily

required rulemaking for popular legislation like the Clean

Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The additional restrictions

imposed by this proposed bill would make it almost impossible

to base public protections on the best available scientific

information. In particular, if enacted, the language appears

to indicate that the EPA would be inhibited by the following

challenges:

The EPA wouldn't be able to use most health studies. It

should be expected that any agency tasked with protecting

public health should be able to use public health data. The

confidentiality of such data is usually protected by

institutional review boards

(IRB) to insure the privacy of the participants; thus, the

data could not be made publicly available as demanded. Since

many EPA rules are health-based standards, this rule would

severely restrict the ability of the agency to base rules on

science.

The EPA wouldn't be able to draw from industry data

sources. The agency would be prevented from using data

provided by industry to the agency. Since information from

industry sources is often not publicly available, to protect

proprietary data from their competitors, a law requiring as

such would prevent the agency from utilizing industry data, a

source of information that often provides otherwise unknown

data to inform EPA rulemaking.

The EPA wouldn't be able to use new and innovative science.

New scientific methods and data may be restricted by

intellectual property protections or industry trade secret

exemptions. This bill doesn't include protections for

intellectual property, and it makes industry trade secrets

available upon request to anyone who signs an agreement. If

researchers and industry knew that sharing their science with

the EPA meant that their intellectual property would be

exposed to the world, they might opt out. This would limit

EPA's ability to rely on the best available science including

novel approaches that may not yet be publicly available.

Long-term and meta-analyses would be unavailable. Many of

the public health and safety issues facing the nation cannot

be measured within a small timeframe. The EPA needs long-term

exposure studies that assess the link between chronic

diseases/mortality and pollutants; or on meta-analyses that

include many different studies and locations to provide a

more robust look at the science. In H.R. 1430, the provision

that studies be conducted ``in a manner that is sufficient

for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of

research'' may prevent use of these vital studies by the EPA,

as it is unclear whether such spatially and temporally

comprehensive studies would be considered ``sufficient for

substantial reproduction.''

The CBO estimates exorbitant costs. The attempt to

implement this law would also make the EPA process much more

costly. For past iterations of this legislation, the CBO has

estimated it may take up to $250 million annually for the EPA

simply to comply, and that doesn't even account for the lost

benefits from delaying the protections themselves. Compounded

with the cuts to EPA's budget that are being proposed, this

would just further prevent the agency from being able to do

its job.

H.R. 1430 makes a token attempt to address some of the

criticisms about privacy concerns for personal medical

information and trade secrets. But in practice, the challenge

of identifying and redacting all protected and privileged

information sets up a series of hurdles and complications

that will deter agencies from using the best scientific

analysis to inform their work.

Small, cosmetic tweaks do not change the fact that this

bill is based on a flawed premise and that the authors of the

legislation do not understand the scientific process.

Furthermore, the burden imposed on the EPA to redact

documents would ultimately place limits on the amount of

actual scientific work the EPA can do. The EPA does not exist

in a world of infinite resources.

When this bill was introduced in the 114th Congress as the

``Secret Science Reform Act,'' it received a veto threat from

the Obama administration, which noted that it would

``interfere'' with the EPA's ability to protect public

health, safety, and the environment. The worry is that now,

with an administration that has shown zero interest in using

science to enact safeguards, this legislation could cripple

the agency.

I strongly urge you to oppose H R. 1430, the so-called

HONEST Act. The only honest thing about this legislation is

that it truly opens the window into the real intentions of

the supporters of the bill, and that is to stop the EPA from

fulfilling its science-based mission to protect public health

and the environment. H.R. 1430 is a wolf in sheep's clothing,

purporting to increase public accessibility to data used in

rulemaking, while actually crippling the EPA's ability to use

the best available scientific and technical information to

protect public health and the environment.

Agencies protecting our public health should be able to use

public health data and attempts to undermine agencies

shouldn't be cloaked in false transparency. This Trojan-horse

transparency bill would inhibit the EPA's ability to carry

out its science-based mission to protect human health and the

environment. It does not deserve your support.

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.,

Director, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of

Concerned Scientists.

Mr. Speaker, on March 16th, 2017, during debate on H.R. 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, the official positions of several veteran services organizations were discussed. To clarify remarks I made during that debate, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) did not take an official position on H.R. 1181 prior to the House's consideration of the bill, nor has IAVA publicly discussed why they have not taken a position on this bill in the 115th Congress. I regret any confusion that may have been caused by my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I recently joined the Committee on Veterans' Affairs because of its bipartisan history of working together to improve care for our veterans. I stand ready to work with the committee--in particular, with Chairman Roe--and with every Member of this House to improve and work on the important issues that affect our veterans every day. However, I cannot support this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.

As this House knows all too well, there is a veterans suicide crisis in this country, a crisis that is enabled by the easy access to firearms. Just last week, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, David Shulkin, told the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs that the issue of veteran suicide is one of his highest priorities, and it needs to be a priority of this House as well.

Today, on this day that we have this debate, 20 brave men and women who have worn the uniform in service of this country will take their lives in suicide, and the vast majority of them will use a gun.

As folks all over the country who have helped veterans know, the means matter. Research has shown that more than 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm are ultimately fatal compared with just 5 percent for all other means. That is why addressing the public health crisis in the veteran community demands a thoughtful and comprehensive approach: to ensure that veterans in crisis do not have easy access to guns and that they get the care that they need and deserve.

And yet, today, this House is voting on legislation that completely ignores the crisis that many of our most vulnerable veterans are facing. Unfortunately, this bill was rushed to the floor with no consideration in committee, collaboration, or even time for all of us to understand its full implications. The majority scheduled H.R. 1181 for a vote in committee last week with the bare minimum notice required, even having to move the start time of the markup to comply with the 48-hour notice requirement.

During last week's committee markup, I raised the concern shared by many who work closely on this issue that H.R. 1181 would end up being applied retroactively. The result of this bill being applied retroactively would mean that, if it should pass, more than 170,000 veterans currently prohibited from owning a firearm would be able to

pass a background check and buy a gun.

While the chairman expressed his sincere intent and desire that this legislation not be applied retroactively, it is fair to say that reasonable people disagree on how this bill would be implemented. This honest disagreement, alone, illustrates exactly why this House should be taking its time on a bill that could have such a profound impact on our Nation's veterans.

The fact of the matter is that, should H.R. 1181 be signed into law, it would need to be read together with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which requires--requires--Federal agencies to update the records they have previously shared with NICS, meaning, should this bill pass, the VA would be required to remove the 170,000 records they have previously shared with NICS since none of those were approved by a court, nor did they meet the new standard established by this bill.

Now, with respect to the text of the bill itself, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, contrary to its name, would create an end run around the firearms mental health prohibitor that we have attempted to refine and improve since Congress passed the Brady Act nearly 20 years ago and the bipartisan NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007.

Put simply, this bill would make it easier, not harder, for those veterans in crisis to get access to a firearm by establishing a new judicial requirement that is far higher than any other agency's or department's implementation of the firearms mental health prohibitor, and, quite frankly, would be impractical, if not impossible, for the VA to actually use. The VA is already strapped for resources, and it is unclear if it has the legal standing to initiate a legal proceeding such as that suggested in the bill.

As Members of this House know very well, there has been a fierce debate in this country over the meaning and extent of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But the question before this House today is not whether an American has a right to own a firearm. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this issue, and the controlling law has been settled. However, constitutional rights are not absolute. As the late Justice Scalia wrote in the controlling Supreme Court Heller decision on the Second Amendment, ``the Second Amendment is not unlimited.''

The question before this House is whether we are going to summarily overturn the VA's efforts over the last 20 years to help prevent veteran suicide and protect veterans' families by reporting the names of veterans with serious mental health issues to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS.

Supporters of this legislation argue that the current process used by the VA to share mental health records with NICS is overinclusive and must be thrown out and replaced with a process that ensures veterans' due process rights.

I agree that the current process is overinclusive, and I agree that we must do more to ensure veterans have sufficient notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a meaningful opportunity to appeal any decision that may impact their constitutional rights; and I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the committee and in this House to more specifically tailor the application of the firearms background checks law as it applies to veterans, both prospectively and retroactively.

But a wholesale elimination of the VA's long-established practice to help keep firearms out of the hands of veterans who are at serious risk of harming themselves or others is dangerous and misguided.

To be clear, of the 170,000 veterans currently prohibited from owning a firearm, as of 2015, almost 20,000 of them were diagnosed with schizophrenia, over 11,000 with dementia, and over 5,000 with Alzheimer's. For a veteran suffering with a significant mental health condition like one of these, access to a firearm is a serious matter.

Moreover, just 3 months ago, this Congress passed bipartisan legislation that codified a process for how the VA can make a determination of the mental capacity of a veteran before that information is sent to NICS. The 21st Century Cures Act, which passed this House 3 months ago by a vote of 392-26, required a veteran to be provided notice of a proposed financial competency determination and given an opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and be represented at a hearing.

H.R. 1181 seeks to undo this carefully crafted compromise before we even have a chance to study the impacts of the 21st Century Cures Act or the VA's existing practices.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 12 veterans, including retired Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, whose leadership and support for our military and veterans community is unquestioned and who believe that this bill could put mentally ill veterans in harm's way by giving them easy access to firearms.

Veterans Coalition for

Common Sense,

March 14, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker

Ryan and Leader Pelosi, As dedicated service members and

members of the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, we write

to you today to express our grave concerns with legislation

being considered by Congress, the Veterans 2nd Amendment

Protection Act. This proposal would put America's veterans

who need our support the most in harm's way by providing them

with easy access to firearms. Instead of passing this

irresponsible and dangerous legislation, Congress should

instead do more to guarantee that all veterans have access to

world-class medical and counseling services. We urge you to

oppose this bill.

Our nation is facing a devastating epidemic of veteran

suicide. The bill you are debating comes at a time when an

average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of

whom do so by using a firearm. We know that non-deployed

veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk of suicide compared

to the American civilian population, and deployed veterans

are at a 41 percent higher risk. Firearms are the most lethal

means when it comes to suicide, resulting in death nine out

of ten times. When vulnerable veterans have access to

firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to

family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies

is felt in communities across our nation.

Last week, we were pleased to hear Secretary of Veterans

Affairs (VA) David Shulkin announce his intent to provide

urgent mental health care services to veterans with other-

than-honorable discharges. This is a step in the right

direction. Over 22,000 soldiers in the Army alone have

received these bad paper discharges since 2009 due to mental

health conditions, and they are among the ones who most need

access to comprehensive mental health services.

But they are not the only ones. In 2008, President Bush

signed a law requiring all federal agencies to submit the

names of individuals who are legally prohibited from

possessing guns to the National Instant Criminal Background

Check System (NICS). Since then, the VA has submitted over

174,000 names of servicemen and women who require a fiduciary

to manage their benefits and have been determined through

clear and convincing evidence to meet the federal standard

for gun prohibition. Of these 174,000, 19,000 are individuals

that suffer from schizophrenia and another 15,000 have severe

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Everytown for Gun Safety and a coalition letter led by the Newtown Action Alliance signed by over 40 organizations from around the country opposing this bill.

Everytown for Gun Safety,

New York, NY, March 7, 2017.

Re Reject H.R. 1181, which would put U.S. veterans in danger.

Hon. Phil Roe,

Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the current practice of information sharing between the VA and NICS is overinclusive and that alternatives should be explored that would more appropriately balance veterans' Second Amendment rights with ensuring that veterans who pose a danger to themselves or to others do not have access to firearms.

This bill, however, was not considered through regular order and no genuine attempt was made to work across the aisle or with the VA to craft a real solution that addresses the real crisis of veterans' suicide in this country.

I stand ready to work with the chairman to address legitimate concerns regarding the VA process. And in fact, just yesterday, I visited at length with VA Secretary Shulkin on how we can all work together to keep our veterans safe and get them the care and support they and their families need.

I cannot support any bill, especially one addressing an issue as important as veterans' suicide, through this rushed process.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1181. Our veterans put their lives on the line for this country. We shouldn't put their lives and their families at risk when they need us most.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the assertion that there is no due process in this act and that the 21st Century Cures Act did not do anything to help veterans.

The 21st Century Cures Act codified the following due process guaranteed to veterans through the VA. Individuals are notified by the VA that a fiduciary is recommended and are allowed 30 days to respond with a notification of acceptance or contest, and they are notified of the implications that this would have for being reported to NICS. The veteran then has 60 days to present evidence against the need for a fiduciary. And as required by law, the VA relief process allows impacted individuals to maintain their fiduciary, but regain gun eligibility removing their names from NICS. These are all already processes in place.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the chairman noted the support of some of the veteran service organizations, and I think it is noteworthy that the IAVA, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, has in the past supported this bill. They do not support it this year. They do not because they are so concerned about the crisis we are facing, particularly in their members--those who have come back from the wars in the last 10 or 20 years. They are concerned about that veteran suicide crisis that we are facing and are concerned that this bill might make that worse.

We have heard repeatedly assertions that this would be the only category, that veterans alone would be deprived without adjudication. That is not true. In fact, the law for the firearms prohibitor covers many categories of people who do not have any legal determination:

Anyone who is an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled

substance is prohibited, does not require any adjudication.

The NICS has 23,000 people who are prohibited under the controlled substance addiction and use category. Anyone adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, there are 4.2 million people. There are a wide variety of people who are in that category, again, many without court orders. Those were aliens, those dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, that is 10,000 individuals. So it is not unique to veterans. There are other categories as well.

But I really think the bottom line is this: we have heard a great deal of agreement that we care about our veterans, we want to prevent military suicides, and we know that for some of these veterans, it would be dangerous for them to have a firearm. That is precisely why this committee should have had a hearing, so we would have had the opportunity to systematically address these issues and find a better way forward that recognizes that some veterans who need a fiduciary also should not have firearms, and some who need a fiduciary, there is no concern there. But we have been deprived of that opportunity in committee, to do the work we should be doing in committee, to work together in a bipartisan way to fashion a better way forward.

This is way too far. It is an overreaction to a process that should be fixed, and we are committed to do that. But the alternative we are presented with today will wholesale uproot the 20-year process of the Veterans Administration that would be dangerous and wrong, and we remain committed to working together in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I note that 18 of the 26 Members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee did not serve during a time when there has been a hearing on this bill--18 of us, and that includes me. The evidence that the chairman was referencing from 2015 was from a hearing that never occurred, so there was never an opportunity to discuss that evidence. Again, I think this underscores the extent to which we really do need a hearing.

I have to say, since 2012, when the Newtown shootings occurred in my district, the public feels differently about this now, and our veterans numbers have been going up and up. So I think it is high time for us to have a hearing. It has been 5 years. We should be looking at this process.

The last point I will note: there has been much made of the Constitution today and how outrageous it is. In 20 years since this process has been in place in the VA, I note that no one has ever challenged this successfully in court as a violation of constitutional due process, and I know the love our veterans have for the Constitution, as we do in this Chamber. That tells me that many families, for example, actually are relying on this.

So, again, I pledge to the chairman we should be working together in committee to get this process right. This is not the way to do it, not with this bill, not with the questions, and not without an opportunity for us to do the things I have referenced.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard spirited and passionate remarks here today, but I think it underscores how much we would benefit, the veterans that we serve would benefit, their families, and this Chamber would benefit from our pursuing regular order with this very important topic. So, again, I urge in the strongest possible terms for my colleagues to vote against this bill, to give us the opportunity to get this process right, to safeguard our veterans, protect them from military suicide, and to preserve their rights in the best possible way. This hastily considered, rushed-through legislation that leaves way too many questions and way too much risk for our veterans I must strongly oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to put people before politics. As we speak, the Senate is moving to strip millions of families of their healthcare coverage and replace it with, well, nothing.

Now, I know that some of my colleagues ran on a platform of repealing the Affordable Care Act, and now they feel boxed in by politics. But let's be very clear about this. The political stakes of repealing the Affordable Care Act without a replacement are nothing compared to the terrible human cost.

I would like to share with my colleagues the experience of Suzie Clayton, my constituent from North Canaan, Connecticut. ``The ACA had a huge, positive impact on my life,'' Suzie wrote to me last week. Because Suzie is a breast cancer survivor, a preexisting condition, it was nearly impossible for her to get decent healthcare coverage before the ACA.

``All that we had put away in retirement funds, nearly $70,000, had to be tapped in order to cover our health costs,'' she wrote. If it weren't for the coverage she gained through the Affordable Care Act, she and her husband would have lost everything they had worked for, quite likely, including their home.

Instead, with the ACA, her family is once again saving for retirement, completing some overdue home repairs, and getting their medical needs taken care of at an affordable price. All of that will go away if this House follows through on its political crusade to wipe away the Affordable Care Act without a replacement.

Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Suzie Claytons in this country, millions of people who will lose their homes, lose their savings, and some will even lose their lives if this Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act without a replacement.

In my home State of Connecticut alone, 180,000 people who have gained coverage since the ACA was implemented stand to lose their health care. That includes 43,000 children.

Think about that for a moment. If Congress repeals the ACA and doesn't replace it with anything, 43,000 children just in my State will lose their health coverage. When those children get sick, too many of their parents will be faced with a heart-wrenching choice: bankrupt the family to pay for their child's medical care or go without the health services their child needs to get better. All of us here who are parents know that that isn't really a choice.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues who are beating the drum for wholesale elimination of the Affordable Care Act: How can you, in good conscience, take away the health care from 43,000 children in my State just to score a political point? How can you throw our healthcare system into chaos just because you are in a political jam?

Let's work together. Let's work together to improve our healthcare system. Let's forge a sensible, bipartisan approach to lower healthcare costs and ensure access to quality care for everyone.

The politics of ObamaCare, no matter how fraught and divisive, should not, must not take priority over the well-being of the American people that we are here to serve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 321, the INSPIRE Women Act.

This bill calls on the NASA administrator to support initiatives that encourage girls and young women to study STEM fields and pursue careers in aerospace. Unfortunately, women are woefully underrepresented in many STEM fields, including aeronautics and aerospace. One of the key barriers to women entering technical fields is self-selection out of STEM degrees due to a lack of role models.

In the words of longtime children's advocate and activist, Marian Wright Edelman: ``You can't be what you can't see.''

Too many girls and young women decide not to pursue studies in technical fields such as science, engineering, and aerospace because they look at their teachers and their role models and they see no one who looks like them.

When students are able to visualize themselves working in technical fields, they gain the confidence they need to take the first step in pursuit of a challenging and rewarding STEM career, to their benefit and to the benefit of society as a whole.

NASA, with its extraordinary STEM workforce, is in a unique position to help close this gap. The agency has access to a diverse group of current and retired women astronauts, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and innovators whose accomplishments and career paths are just the sort of inspiration that girls and young women need.

Astronaut Kate Rubins broke barriers and boundaries when she became the first person to ever sequence DNA in space during her spaceflight last year.

Just last Friday, Peggy Whitson, the first female commander of the International Space Station, completed her seventh space walk.

Vera Rubin's recent passing reminded us of her trailblazing career in astronomy in which she made the groundbreaking discovery of dark matter.

As has already been mentioned by my friend and colleague, Barbara Comstock, the newly released movie, ``Hidden Figures,'' highlights through the pioneering story of early NASA mathematicians and engineers Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson that women have been instrumental to our aerospace enterprise since its inception.

NASA has developed a number of programs aimed at leveraging its inspirational workforce to encourage girls and young women to pursue STEM degrees and STEM careers. This includes the NASA GIRLS program, the Aspire 2 Inspire program, and the Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research, or SISTER program.

H.R. 321 instructs the NASA administrator to continue supporting these and other programs that encourage women and girls to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, as well as to pursue careers in aerospace.

Additionally, the bill calls on NASA to develop a plan for how it can best facilitate and support current and retired astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators to engage with K-12 female STEM students.

Although retired engineers, astronauts, scientists, and engineers are invaluable to inspiring the next generation of NASA scientists, I am especially glad and thankful to my colleague for including early career female astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators in this plan. It is very important for America's young girls to have experiences interacting with young women who look like them in the STEM fields.

I thank my Science, Space, and Technology Committee colleague, Representative Comstock, for her leadership on the bill, as well as our esteemed chairman, Lamar Smith, and our wonderful ranking member, Eddie Bernice Johnson.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my esteemed colleagues for their leadership on this, in particular, Representative Comstock from Virginia and the ranking member.

This is a very laudable bill that plays an important role in inspiring the next generation of STEM engineers and scientists, and I am pleased that we are able to offer this again. This did pass in the last Congress. Unfortunately, it did not make it through the Senate. I am delighted that we are moving early in this session and would urge all of my colleagues to swiftly pass this, to send it to the Senate, and to get it on the President's desk and make sure these important programs are supported long into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 255, the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act.

Our bill encourages the National Science Foundation to use its successful entrepreneurial education and training programs, such as the Innovation Corps, known as I-Corps, and Partnerships for Innovation, to inspire, recruit, and support women scientists and engineers who are interested in turning their laboratory discoveries into commercial technologies.

Mr. Speaker, you may ask: Why is it that we need a bill like this? We have these programs. Doesn't everyone know that we need more women in the STEM fields?

The answer is twofold:

Number one, we have a workforce shortage. If you take the field of advanced manufacturing by itself, in New England, there are 16,000 positions that are open currently. We have people who are looking for work--many of them women. They don't have the skill sets to meet that open job need right now, and that is a need for America to fill those jobs; so, number one, we need our qualified workforce with appropriate skills to meet the jobs of today.

We also need to think about the jobs of tomorrow. We are a wonderfully diverse country. Over half of our workforce is made up of women and people of color--historically, chronically, still-- underrepresented in the STEM fields. There are problems we aren't even addressing and solutions we haven't thought of if we don't have more women with these power tools of the STEM skills to address the challenges and opportunities that this country is facing; so it is both a moral and an economic imperative that we equip more young women, and that is what our bill aims to do here today.

I have heard time and time again in my district, in which we have a lot of small startup companies and major universities, about this challenge that we face of bridging that gap between the laboratory and what happens in the commercial workforce. Through my work, I have formed a STEM advisory council and have met with them for the last 2 years. Among these are the problems they identified: limited access to capital, a lack of women mentors in the STEM fields, unmanageable expectations for work-life balance, and unconscious biases against women in the sciences. These are among the sorts of issues for which the I-Corps and the Partnerships for Innovation have been designed--in order to help close that gap to deal with these issues.

I want to give you examples of two of the women in my district with whom I have met who are benefiting from these programs and why we need to have more of them and the kind of difference that they will make.

The first is Zengmin Xia. She is a student at the University of Connecticut, and she helped the Wei Laboratory secure a National Science Foundation I-Corps grant to commercialize her work on tissue engineer scaffolds, innovative work which is going to help with bone repair and regeneration. She attributes her success to her female adviser and mentor, Professor Mei Wei, who encouraged her as a young woman to carry out her path forward in the biotech world. She helped her make that transition from the lab and the classroom out into the commercial world. She was lucky that she had a mentor with the experience to help close this gap.

Claire Leonardi is the CEO of Health Esense, which is a digital health startup firm in Avon, Connecticut. She received seed grant funding and gained access to hands-on training workshops to learn how to market her technology to consumers. She is now equipped with the tools to take her discovery and bring it into market.

Both of these women scientists are examples of the kind of innovation, the kind of economic engine, and the problem solving we need all Americans to participate in. That is what is at stake. That is why we are proposing this. This is not simply about having a poster with a diverse group of scientists to hang on the wall at the Air and Space Museum and inspire young people. That is important, but it is also important to build on the good work we have already done with the National Science Foundation--to really provide that equipment, those tools, those mentors, the training, and to take those lab discoveries, the basic R&D, and commercialize it.

I am very excited that we are reintroducing this bill. It passed with overwhelming support in the last Congress. Once again, sadly, it did not pass in the Senate, but we will start early in this Congress. I am delighted to be working again with my colleague, Mrs. Comstock; with the ranking member, Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is here today; and with Chairman Smith, who is detained with other committee work.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank Congressman Comstock, Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, and our Chairman Lamar Smith, and I would urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile piece of legislation. It is wonderful to be able to start out the legislative session with important legislation that will help make a difference. Not only the lives of the individuals who receive these grants and this training but the entire country benefits when we have more women and more young women trained in these fields and able to operationalize and commercialize their discoveries to the benefit of all Americans and, in many cases, the entire world.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this and vote in favor of this important resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

``. . . to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more States,--between citizens of different States,--between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.''

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the State of Connecticut lost one of its great sons with the passing of Col. John G. Chiarella, Sr., a veteran from Waterbury who continued to serve his nation, state and community long after his military career ended.

Col. Chiarella entered the United States Army in 1950 and was deployed to Korea in October 1952. He became a Reservist in 1953 and was called back to active duty during the Berlin Crisis. He achieved the rank of colonel in 1975 and retired from the military after 34 years of exemplary service.

When he returned to his hometown of Waterbury, Col. Chiarella dedicated himself to the community he loved. Reflecting his commitment to all who have served in the Armed Forces, ``the Colonel,'' as everyone knew him, led the Waterbury Veterans Memorial Committee for over 25 years. As chairman, he helped countless veterans and their families receive the services, benefits, and recognition they deserved.

In 2011, John Chiarella was inducted into the Connecticut Veterans Hall of Fame, in recognition of his extraordinary commitment to his fellow veterans, as well as his dedication to future generations, which he demonstrated by establishing patriotic programs for school children.

Col. Chiarella was also a devoted family man. He loved his late wife, Ann--who he called ``the General''--with all of his heart. They were married for 59 years before her death in 2011. He and Ann raised a beautiful family with three sons, and seven grandchildren.

I had the great fortune to know Col. Chiarella and call him my friend. His warm heart, wonderful sense of humor, infectious smile, and love of life touched all who knew him. He truly left the world a better place.

Col. Chiarella's life embodied the spirit of civic engagement that strengthens our communities, and makes our country a better place. His contributions to the City of Waterbury, the State of Connecticut, and to the United States will not be forgotten.

Colonel, we love you and miss you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to begin by thanking my friend, Chairman Smith, for his leadership on the Science Committee, particularly on STEM education.

For the second Congress in a row, we are considering the STEM Education Act on the House floor. I am grateful that we are advancing these important efforts in a bipartisan fashion, thanks in large part to the chairman's willingness to work across the aisle.

I would also like to thank and recognize the work of Representative Lipinski for his diligent work on this and many other bills and my good friend Eddie Bernice Johnson for her thoughtful leadership on STEM education and on all issues facing the Science Committee.

The STEM Education Act of 2015 supports teachers who are preparing students to be the engineers, manufacturers, and scientists of tomorrow. We all know that students, particularly elementary school students, learn best when they are engaged and interested.

However, any parent knows that it can be difficult to spark a student's passion for STEM subjects without innovative and creative learning environments. With more and more jobs of the 21st century requiring STEM skills, we need to better prepare our children for these good-paying jobs.

As a mother of three, I remember when my children had incredible teachers who made science and math accessible and fun. We should do all we can to support innovative, passionate teachers for every child in every school.

This bill today includes sections of my STEM Jobs Act, a bill expanding the Robert Noyce Master Teaching Fellowship program at the National Science Foundation. Currently, Master Teaching fellowships provide mentoring, training, and financial support to STEM professionals who want to enter the teaching profession.

In Connecticut, we have two Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship programs. UConn's Teachers for Tomorrow program prepares teachers throughout the State to teach math, biology, physics, and chemistry to students of all ages. At the University of Bridgeport, the Master Teacher Fellowship program places master physics teachers in high-need high schools in southwestern Connecticut.

Our bill today expands the Master Teaching Fellowship so that those who are working towards a master's degree, not just those who already have a master's degree, are also eligible to apply--supporting more passionate teachers and, in doing so, allowing more students to benefit from excellent STEM instructors.

Our bill also promotes learning outside of the classroom. In Connecticut, we have the wonderful Connecticut Science Center, with incredibly creative exhibits like one called ``Grossology,'' where children can explore how to keep their bodies healthy by crawling through an enormous digestive system and experiencing a ``larger than life sneeze,'' perfect for inspiring our Nation's future doctors and biomedical researchers.

In addition to educating and inspiring our children, science centers, planetariums, and aquariums across the country also provide invaluable teacher training. Last year alone, the Connecticut Science Center trained nearly 1,200 teachers who then went on to teach and inspire tens of thousands of their students.

The bill today directs the National Science Foundation to continue to award competitive grants for out-of-school STEM learning experiences for both students and teachers.

Finally, our bill takes the important step of expanding the definition of STEM for Federal programs and grants to include computer science.

As a member of the Science Committee and Representative Lipinski's STEM Education Caucus, I have been a strong advocate for increasing literacy in computer science. This winter, I joined students from across the State and more than 100 million worldwide to participate in an hour of code. We learned basic computer programming skills and discovered it is a lot of fun.

I also helped create the Congressional App Challenge and hosted this competition in my district where students created and built apps for their smartphones. The entries submitted by these high school students were incredibly innovative and useful, technologically advanced, as well as terrific examples of the problem solving we need all of our students to learn.

The winning apps included an app to keep teachers informed during a school emergency, a program to help students know if they are going to be able to catch their bus on time, an app I know that my children would have benefited from greatly on those cold Connecticut winter mornings--like this morning--and an app to help high school freshmen learn their way around a big new school.

The STEM app competition helps students experience for themselves how important and fun computer science can be; but, for example, in Connecticut, where only 65 schools across the State have dedicated computer science programs, it is critical that we continue to expand access to computer science education for all students.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that we are rising above partisan politics to advance the bipartisan STEM Education Act of 2015. This bill demonstrates that we can come together to help our children, to help them thrive, and to help ensure that they will be competitive in the 21st century global economy.

I want, again, to thank Chairman Smith and Representative Lipinski for their leadership and the committee staff for their hard work on the STEM Education Act.

I would also like to thank my friend, Ranking Member Johnson, a dedicated STEM champion, who is leading all of us on the Science Committee to truly recognize the importance of a robust and multidisciplinary STEM education and inspire us to do more across the board to support STEM.

I look forward to working with Ranking Member Johnson and the rest of the committee to further advance our priorities in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), my friend, the ranking member of the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state that on Thursday, February 12, I unfortunately missed two roll call votes as I was attending the bill signing ceremony at the White House for the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, of which I am a proud original cosponsor. This law will go a long way to increase access to mental health care and suicide prevention resources for military servicemembers and veterans Had I been present I would have voted:

1. NO--Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 101

I would have voted no in order to allow a vote on H.R. 861, a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security through the end of fiscal year 2015, which would prevent a partial government shutdown and provide certainty that DHS operations to protect Americans will proceed without interruption.

2. NO--Approving H. Res. 101

I would have voted no on H. Res. 101, which prevented the House from considering any amendments to either H.R. 644 or H.R. 636.

George Washington, President and deputy from Virginia.

Delaware: George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom.

Maryland: James McHenry, Daniel of St Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll.

Virginia: John Blair, James Madison, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, to honor and remember the 20 innocent children and six brave educators gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in my district 2 years ago.

The community of Newtown has asked us all to honor their memory with acts of kindness. They have asked us to honor with action. So I urge you to take a moment out of this busy holiday season and to volunteer at a local soup kitchen or to buy holiday gifts for needy families.

Let's honor with action, with acts of kindness this week, and with action in Congress that makes our world safer for all our children. Our hearts are broken, but our spirit is not.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, I held my Congress on Your Corner at the Litchfield Public Library, and there, I had conversations with folks young and old, and we talked about what matters to them and to their families, and I heard about their concerns with the pressing issues facing our country right now.

How can Washington jump-start our economy again? When will we rebuild our aging bridges and roads? What is Congress doing about our broken immigration system?

Here we are, 2 days before the Speaker's August recess, and there is a vote to sue the President. Yes, that is right, we are wasting time and taxpayer money voting on politically-motivated attacks against the President, rather than this House taking action to help the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we should be debating a long-term, sustainable solution to fund the dwindling highway trust fund, fix our infrastructure, and create jobs. We should work together to fix our broken immigration system and to address the humanitarian crisis at the border, and we should vote to enact Make It In America legislation that supports good- paying jobs right here at home.

Mr. Speaker, moms in my district and across this country ask me every day: When will this House allow a vote on commonsense gun violence prevention? Coming from a State that is working to regain jobs that were lost during the recession, I believe that we should cancel this recess to extend emergency unemployment for jobseekers in my State of Connecticut and all across America.

No; instead, we are wasting time and taxpayer money on a frivolous lawsuit, rather than working together--working together--to stop corporate tax inversions or close tax loopholes for companies that are shipping our jobs overseas.

The folks I listened to in Litchfield last Saturday morning deserve better. The American people deserve better. It is time to put partisanship aside and to put middle class families first. We should cancel recess. We should stay here and work together on policies to jump-start our economy and get the job done for all of the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 935.

When the House considered this bill in the 112th Congress, before I was elected to serve here, proponents like my good friend, Mr. Gibbs, argued that unless Congress acted, the process for getting a pesticide general permit under the Clean Water Act would cause agriculture, forestry, and public health-related activities to grind to a halt.

However, after almost 3 years of implementation, I am confused about the need for this bill. The sky has not fallen, farmers and forestry operators have had several successful growing seasons, and public health officials have successfully addressed multiple threats of mosquito-borne illness while at the same time complying with the sensible requirements of both the Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA.

I say sensible because, as we should clearly understand, the intended focus of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA are very different.

FIFRA is intended to address the safety and effectiveness of pesticides on a national scale, preventing unreasonable adverse effects on human health and the environment through uniform labels indicating approved uses and restrictions.

However, the Clean Water Act is focused on restoring and maintaining the integrity of the Nation's waters, with a primary focus on the protection of local water quality.

It is simply incorrect to say that applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide in accordance with its labeling requirement is a surrogate for protecting local water quality. As any farmer knows, complying with FIFRA is as simple as applying a pesticide in accordance with its label. Farmers do not need to look at the localized impact of that pesticide on local water quality.

If, as my colleagues suggest, FIFRA is an adequate substitute for the Clean Water Act permitting requirements, then why is it that pesticides keep showing up in water quality samples from both ground and surface waters?

If applying a FIFRA-approved pesticide according to its label is protective of human health and the environment, then why is it that so many States continue to report significant numbers of pesticide- impaired waters?

I urge my colleagues to note that, according to a 2006 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, at least one pesticide was detected in waters from all streams tested throughout the Nation. Let me repeat that. Pesticides were detected in every single stream tested by the USGS.

State water pollution control agencies have similarly identified a number of surface waters that are currently contaminated by pesticides. States have identified over 16,800 miles of rivers and streams, 1,700 square miles of bays and estuaries, and 372,000 acres of lakes that are currently impaired or threatened by pesticides, meaning that that particular water body cannot or should not be used as a source of drinking water and be appropriate for fish or shellfish propagation or recreation.

It is also telling that States continue to identify waters that remain impaired by pesticides, pesticides which have been banned by this country for decades.

Some have questioned the environmental and public health benefits of the Clean Water Act for the application of pesticides. However, many of the benefits are so obvious that perhaps we have simply overlooked them.

First, let us look, the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, requires pesticide applicators to minimize pesticide discharge through the use of pesticide management measures.

Second, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to monitor for and report any adverse incidents that result from spraying. I would think that monitoring for large fish kills or wildlife kills, as my colleague from Oregon has noted, would be a mutually-agreed upon benefit.

Also, it is the Clean Water Act, and not FIFRA, that requires pesticide applicators to keep records on where and how many pesticides are being applied throughout the Nation.

Again, if data is showing that a local water body is contaminated by pesticides, I would think that the public, our constituents, would want to quickly identify the likely source of the pesticide that is causing the impairment.

Finally, and perhaps most important, I am unaware of any specific example where the current Clean Water Act requirements have prevented a pesticide applicator from performing his or her services.

Despite claims to the contrary, the Clean Water Act is not being used to ban the use of pesticides.

So, again, let's summarize a few points.

First, the Clean Water Act provides a valuable service by ensuring that an appropriate amount of pesticides are being applied at appropriate times, and that pesticides are not having an adverse impact on human health or the environment.

Second, to the best of my knowledge, the pesticide general permit has not impeded pesticide applicators from

servicing both agricultural and public health communities. In fact, most pesticide applications are automatically covered under the pesticide general permit, either by no action or by the filing of the simple electronic notice of intent.

Third, Federal and State data make it very clear that the application of pesticides in compliance with FIFRA alone, as was the case for many years, was insufficient to protect bodies of water throughout the United States from being contaminated by pesticides.

If we care about water quality, we need to do more.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have to question what this legislation is really trying to accomplish. Is it really about the so-called regulatory burden of applying for a Clean Water Act permit? As we noted earlier, in the majority of cases, a small-scale user of pesticides is automatically covered by the Clean Water Act under the general permit, provided they apply pesticides in a commonsense manner.

Again, is it about the so-called threat of lawsuits? Again, if the pesticide applicator is applying the pesticide in compliance with the permit, they are statutorily immune from lawsuits under the Clean Water Act.

Is it about compliance costs? Yet, again, there is no evidence at the hearing, in the record, to demonstrate that the Clean Water Act is significantly increasing the costs of compliance to the average pesticide applicator.

The reality is there is no substantive reason why this legislation is necessary, except to limit the scope of the Clean Water Act protections from pesticide pollution that is impairing water quality across the Nation.

I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 935.