Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention a unique monument that is about to be installed in my district on Memorial Day. On May 28th a ceremony will be held at the Centralville Memorial Park in Lowell, Massachusetts to place a memorial stone in honor of the 12 American Army and Naval aviators who died as POWs from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Participating in the remembrance will be Mr. Shigeaki Mori from Japan, a Hiroshima survivor (a hibakusha) who has devoted nearly half his life to identifying these men and notifying their families of their fate.

One of the POWs was 19-year-old Navy Airman 3rd-class Norman Brissette from Lowell, Massachusetts. He was among the 12 American airmen who survived the downing of four planes while on missions over Hiroshima and Kure on July 28, 1945. At the memorial ceremony, the Brissette family and friends will be joined by the family of another Hiroshima POW Army Air Corps Staff Sgt. Ralph J. Neal from Corbin, Kentucky. Both families were featured in the documentary film, Paper Lanterns, about Mr. Mori's quest to honor the memory and bravery of these American POWs.

Mr. Mori was eight years old when he survived the bombing of Hiroshima, then a military city. His elementary school became a temporary hospital and soon a crematory. As an adult, haunted by the horror and doubting the official number of 800 dead, Mr. Mori sought to find out how many people had died at his school. The actual number was 2,300. During his research, he also discovered that 12 American POWs were among the 100,000 who perished in Hiroshima.

The Americans were prisoners of the Kempeitai and held in Hiroshima's Chugoku Military Police Headquarters near the atomic blast's epicenter. Mr. Mori has spent decades identifying these Americans and locating their surviving family members in the United States. With the family's permission, he had the names of each of the 12 airman inscribed in Hiroshima's Register of the Names of the Fallen Atomic Bomb Victims. In July 1998, Mr. Mori placed a memorial plaque to the men on the building that was their prison. It is the only memorial in Hiroshima dedicated to the Americans killed there.

On May 27, 2016 President Barack Obama became the first sitting president to visit Hiroshima. After the ceremony, the President hugged a tearful Mr. Mori and thanked him for his work on behalf of the American POWs. The image of President Obama and embracing Mr. Mori has come to define friendship and reconciliation between the United States and Japan.

I welcome Mr. Mori and his wife Kayoko to my district and thank them for their dedication to peace and to making a world free of nuclear weapons. As President Obama said at Hiroshima, ``we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.'' This is what the Moris have done.

Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Smith for yielding.

Earlier this month, the Armed Services Committee advanced the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act to the House floor with broad, bipartisan support.

I thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for their work in developing this year's bill. I have greatly appreciated the bipartisan tradition that annually allows us to come together to best protect our country and those who serve on our behalf.

The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee has embodied that spirit of bipartisanship, and I would like to thank my friend and colleague Congressman Mike Turner for all the work we have done together over the past several years.

I am especially pleased that the bill under consideration today includes proposals related to better understanding and reducing physiological episodes in Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force aircraft. I believe it is important to keep calling on DOD to solve this problem across multiple aircraft, wherever it occurs.

The bill also appropriately directs the Air Force to continue the JSTARS recap program while the service works to develop a next- generation JSTARS in order to ensure this critical capability remains available to maximum effect to our servicemembers.

The proposal makes important investments in research and development aimed at using advanced materials to increase ballistic protection and reduce the weight of the personal protective equipment we issue to those we send into harm's way.

With these provisions in mind, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to see that we provide our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to carry out their mission.

Finally, I would like to thank all the members of the subcommittee and the professional staff members for all of their dedicated work to help produce this mark.

Mr. Chair, I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I join Ranking Member Grijalva in opposing this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

For 45 years, the Endangered Species Act has served as one of our Nation's bedrock environmental statutes. The bald eagle, the American alligator, and the gray whale are just a few examples of iconic species that have recovered from the brink of extinction thanks to the Endangered Species Act.

Despite its widely recognized success and broad support across State and party lines, today, the House is seeking to pass yet another bill that undermines this bedrock environmental law and causes irreparable harm to salmon and steelhead species, species that are already at great risk of extinction, species that play an irreplaceable role in the Pacific Northwest's ecosystem. Their presence benefits more than 130 other species, including the critically endangered Southern Resident killer whales, whose existence depends upon healthy salmon runs.

This is not just about the Pacific Northwest. Any effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act and, thereby, its protections for the species and landscapes that make our country uniquely American impacts us all.

Several Federal agencies and courts have determined that dam operations in the Columbia and Snake Rivers cause significant harm to 13 species or populations of salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Instead of allowing science-based management practices that protect both endangered species and the many users of these rivers, including hydropower generators, this legislation locks in a failing operation plan that has already been found in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Knowingly endangering the existence of salmon is in direct violation of the law and betrays the long bipartisan tradition of the Endangered Species Act.

Instead of rolling back critical safeguards and recovery efforts, we should reject this legislation and support a transparent stakeholder- driven process that protects endangered species and the many fishermen, businesses, communities, and Tribes who depend on a sustainable Columbia River.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 3144.

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, 2018 I missed Roll Call Vote No. 106. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes.

No other developed nation on the planet experiences gun violence with the frequency that we do in the United States. The gun homicide rate in our country is more than seven times that of Sweden, six times that of Canada, and twenty-one times that of Australia. On average, 93 Americans die every day from gun violence and 222 people are shot and survive,

including 40 children and teens. And since 1970, more Americans have been killed by guns than Americans killed in all of our nation's wars combined.

The numbers are simply staggering.

H.R. 4909 will help schools develop violence prevention strategies, strengthen school security, and help educators and law enforcement prevent students from hurting themselves or others. But Congress should be doing much more to prevent gun violence. The majority of the American people--and the majority of gun owners--want Congress to take action.

The American people deserve open floor debates or straight up or down votes on commonsense measures such as banning ``bump stocks'' which make guns more lethal, forming a select committee on gun violence, requiring background checks for all gun sales, and allowing the Centers for Disease Control and other federal health agencies to conduct crucial gun violence research.

Americans deserve a society that is free from the regular threat of gun violence. The status quo is unacceptable. We have a responsibility to pursue change.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize my colleague, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, who is making history as the longest serving female member of the House of Representatives.

This is especially momentous for my district, as she now surpasses Edith Nourse Rogers, who served in Congress for 35 years and previously held the record of the longest serving female member. Representative Rogers was the first woman to represent Massachusetts in Congress, hailing from my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts and serving the district I now represent.

Edith Nourse Rogers became the sixth woman to serve in the House of Representatives when she was elected in 1935. She was one of only 17 upon her death in 1960. Today, Marcy Kaptur is one of 84 women in the House, and odds are that number is sure to grow in November.

This historic moment is significant because of the remarkable commitment to public service that Marcy Kaptur has demonstrated over the past 35 years, but also because of the model of service she represents to the thousands of women who have been motivated to run for office in recent years.

I am grateful that Marcy has brought a woman's voice to so many critical debates over the course of her tenure, and I think it is worth pointing out that she has never run unopposed. She's earned every vote she's received in 18 consecutive elections.

I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio on this remarkable achievement. May it inspire continued courage and confidence in women who seek to follow in her ``persistent'' footsteps.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will vote on H.R. 1, the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Republicans say will support America's middle class. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Middle-income Americans will receive, at best, one-fifth of the promised benefit of these tax cuts.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, H.R. 1 will raise taxes on 36 million hardworking middle class American households.

It scraps benefits our families depend on, like the student loan interest and medical expense deductions. Imagine, in a time when access to higher education is critical to a family's economic well-being, making it even more expensive.

This legislation was written behind closed doors, in secret, without Democratic input and without any hearings.

Mr. Speaker, a bill to overhaul the Tax Code, the results of which will affect every American for decades to come, deserves open and transparent consideration. I urge my colleagues to work together to instead craft a tax reform bill that truly lifts up the middle class and invests in our future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Smith and Chairman Thornberry for their leadership. I would also like to thank Chairman Turner for his partnership and leadership this year on the Tactical Air and

Land Forces Subcommittee and for maintaining the spirit of bipartisanship that is the tradition of this committee.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2018 NDAA takes significant steps to support and protect military members and their families. However, I share Ranking Member Smith's concerns that this year's bill authorizes a level of defense funding that is wholly unrealistic.

The numbers included in this bill are well above caps placed on defense spending by the Budget Control Act, and prioritize defense spending at a devastating cost to important Federal agencies and other investments that are critical to maintaining our national competitiveness and the future of our country. They are being put forward at the same time that we are considering a tax reform bill that will significantly cut revenues and, by the latest estimate, add $1.7 trillion to the Federal deficit. Accordingly, the increased spending included in this bill are hollow numbers and we are failing to deliver a credible or sensible long-term plan to the Defense Department.

Throughout my tenure on this committee, I have been guided by our moral obligation to ensure that the men and women that we send into harm's way are properly equipped and the best protected in the world. I would never deny them the tools they need to defend themselves and our Nation, which is why I will be voting for this compromise.

I understand the necessity of many of the programs that are funded each year in this bill and believe its passage is needed to maintain American military superiority against a variety of threats while supporting our men and women in uniform. But ongoing budget negotiations need to get realistic. We owe it to our servicemembers to find a responsible, balanced path forward that works for both our national and economic security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2142, the INTERDICT Act, legislation I was pleased to introduce with Congressman Fitzpatrick.

Whenever I meet with local public safety officials in my district, they explain the urgent need for resources and support to combat drugs like fentanyl, which can be up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine.

In Massachusetts, the proportion of overdose deaths attributed to fentanyl is rising at a meteoric rate. At its lowest, in the third quarter of 2014,

fentanyl was present in 18 percent of opioid-related deaths in Massachusetts; but by 2016, fentanyl was present in a staggering 69 percent of the State's opioid-related deaths, resulting in 1,400 fentanyl-related deaths in the Commonwealth, a staggering number.

Although pharmaceutical fentanyl can be misused, most fentanyl deaths are linked to illicitly manufactured fentanyl and illicit versions of chemically similar compounds. The primary source of fentanyl is outside of the United States, in Mexico or China. The drug is smuggled in across the U.S. border or delivered via mail or express consignment couriers.

The INTERDICT Act will provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection with the latest in chemical screening devices to deploy across the United States to better detect and intercept fentanyl and other synthetic opioids.

Furthermore, this legislation will ensure that Customs and Border Protection has the resources, personnel, and facilities--including scientists available during all operational hours--to interpret screening test results from the field.

These high-tech devices will also protect law enforcement officers and their four-legged counterparts on the front lines from exposure to the deadly narcotic, which is so powerful that coming into contact with just a few grains can be fatal.

I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee for their support, and I also want to thank Mr. Fitzpatrick for his partnership on this legislation, as well as our colleagues in the Senate, Senators Markey, Rubio, Brown, and Capito, for their bipartisan work on the Senate counterpart legislation.

The Federal Government must do its part to ensure our first responders have the tools they need in this greatest of public health fights. The INTERDICT Act provides important and powerful resources in this endeavor, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, each year half a million people visit the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex, eight individual wildlife refuges that are home to 30 miles of beautiful walking trails, canoe launches, treasured fishing spots, and peaceful scenic overlooks. Since 2003, Project Leader Elizabeth ``Libby'' Herland has been the steward of this 17,000-acre environmental jewel; a guardian of its remarkable landscape and a visionary who has helped protect six Federally-listed endangered and threatened species on eight refuges, which include many rivers and a portion of the ocean shore of Cape Cod.

Upon Libby's retirement on September 30, 2017, the Fish and Wildlife Service will lose one of its most dedicated and passionate officials. However, Libby's influence will remain visible and tangible for many years to come. Under Libby's supervision, the eight refuges that make up the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex expanded outreach to urban areas, building on successful urban education programs in Lowell, Massachusetts, and expanded visitor facilities. Libby oversaw the construction of the Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center which hosts hundreds of school children year after year to learn about the natural wonders that surround them.

Libby dedicated herself to a lifetime of public service. During her 29-year career with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Libby served in a myriad of positions across the organization, from managing the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge in Sussex County, New Jersey to the Regional Partners for Wildlife Coordinator in Newton, Massachusetts.

After working closely with Libby for many years, I am profoundly appreciative of her commitment to wildlife, education, and her many years of effective leadership. Libby's visionary leadership will be missed across the East Coast of America.

I extend my sincerest thanks and congratulations to Libby on behalf of a grateful nation, and I am confident that even in retirement she will remain a steward of our environment.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 50 years, community health centers across the United States have delivered affordable, accessible, and quality primary healthcare to patients regardless of their ability to pay. They care for the whole person, bringing together medical and behavioral health with pharmacy services.

In my district, I have seen the important work that goes on at community health centers in Massachusetts, in Lowell, Lawrence, Gardner, and Fitchburg. In 2016, these facilities and their staff cared for more than 100,000 people.

Unfortunately, community health centers are facing a funding cliff if the Community Health Center program is not reauthorized by the end of this year. A lack of funding means too many of my constituents would immediately lose access to care, putting the health of our communities at risk.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together and make sure this vital program is funded.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect Massachusetts DREAMers like Andres, who is working as an engineering technologies consultant.

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

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

My amendment is very straightforward. It restores a bipartisan provision to the bill, one that was actually approved by Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

In 2009, Congress approved the King Cove Land Exchange under the condition that it be found to be in the national interest by the Secretary of the Interior. After a transparent 4-year review that included over 70,000 public comments and 130 public meetings, Secretary Jewell ultimately concluded that it was not in the national interest, and the land exchange was not approved.

Nevertheless, the legislation that was approved and signed into law in 2009 with Democratic and Republican support included language that, should the road be approved, it would have required the State of Alaska, Federal agencies, and local residents to develop a mitigation plan for the road so that impacts to migratory birds, wildlife, and wetlands are minimized.

The land exchange language that was passed by Congress in 2009 is similar to the legislation that we are considering today, with a few notable exceptions, including the removal of the section requiring this environmental mitigation plan.

It is common practice for any new road construction project to include an environmental mitigation plan, especially a road through such a sensitive area.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my commonsense amendment to reinsert this bipartisan language, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to keep in mind that the lands that this road seeks to cross are Federally protected public lands. They are managed and protected on behalf of all Americans to specifically protect wildlife habitat. And, as such, when changes like this are being debated, all Americans have the right to register their opinion.

They are also designated wilderness, the highest level of protection that the American people bestow upon a piece of public land, and we in Congress are stewards of that mandate.

The road proposed by this legislation could do irreparable harm to the fragile environment of this wildlife refuge

if mitigation steps are not taken. As the Department of the Interior stated in 2013, this area is ``a globally significant landscape that supports an abundance and diversity of wildlife unique to the refuge that years of analysis shows us would be irretrievably damaged by construction and operation of the proposed road.''

The Department also found that construction of the road would lead to ``significant degradation of irreparable ecological resources that would not be offset by the protection of other lands to be received under an exchange.''

My amendment simply reinserts bipartisan language that was approved by Congress and signed into law by 2009 that will help mitigate some, but not all, of the negative environmental impacts in the event that the road is constructed.

Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to first remind my distinguished colleague from Alaska, who I know cares very deeply about his constituents, that in 2009, he did vote for the omnibus land package that included the language that I would like to see become part of the legislation before us today.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It restores bipartisan language that was passed by Congress and that Congressman Young supported and signed into law on similar legislation authorizing this land exchange back in 2009.

The road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is expected to have a significant detrimental impact on lands that are protected for the benefit of all Americans. This amendment will help mitigate some, but not all, of these impacts in the event that the road is constructed.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment protects a robust public review process for any proposed pipeline that seeks to cross protected conservation and recreation lands. The legislation before us today, with its short-circuited environmental reviews, puts treasured public lands at risk.

My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country, faces real energy challenges. We need careful and strategic long-term planning in order to lower energy prices and maintain reliability and resiliency. Over the past several years, we have seen proposals for new natural gas pipelines that would stretch hundreds of miles and cross many different communities.

We must work to identify ways to lower energy prices for our homes and businesses, and increasing the supply of lower cost natural gas may be one way to achieve that objective while we transition to cleaner, more affordable, and sustainable alternatives. However, we cannot, in the long run, afford to be careless about our other environmental interests as we make that transition.

These major infrastructure proposals in New England and elsewhere around the country deserve close and careful scrutiny given the potential environmental impacts and the costs borne by ratepayers.

Regrettably, this legislation moves us in the wrong direction. This bill would force FERC to rush decisionmaking, including environmental reviews necessary to determine if pipelines will have negative impacts on State forests, parks, wildlife management areas, and wetlands, lands expressly put aside as a result of a public decision to protect them.

Our Nation has a longstanding history of preserving natural habitats and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested enormous public resources toward these goals. These lands and the decisions behind them deserve to be honored.

In my district, we recently went through the public review process for a

proposed natural gas pipeline. Hundreds of my constituents expressed their concerns about the project. Construction of the pipeline could have jeopardized local wildlife and impacted both State and federally designated conservation land, as well as Massachusetts' scarce farmland.

Thanks to a robust review process, the public had numerous opportunities to question the project and express these legitimate concerns, and their views were able to be fully considered.

While I believe we must protect that review process for all infrastructure projects, my amendment focuses on pipelines that cross protected conservation and recreation lands.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and protect investments by Federal taxpayers, States, and local communities in preserving their natural and historic resources.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, first, that energy infrastructure is critical to our economy; yet we cannot simply give the fossil fuel industry carte blanche to build pipelines without robust public reviews.

I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment protects a robust public review process for any proposed pipeline that seeks to cross protected conservation and recreation lands, this time for pipelines that includes a crossing with Canada or Mexico. The legislation before us today, with its narrowly defined environmental reviews and limited public input, puts treasured public resources at risk.

My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country, faces real energy challenges. We need careful and strategic long-term planning in order to lower energy prices and increase reliability and resiliency.

However, as with H.R. 2910 that we considered earlier this afternoon, H.R. 2883 moves us in the wrong direction. In fact, it doesn't allow any careful or strategic planning when it comes to fossil fuel pipelines.

Cross-border and natural gas pipeline interests should not be permitted to cavalierly tread on public lands, lands expressly set aside by Federal taxpayers, State and local communities for the benefit of conservation and public recreation.

Our Nation has a longstanding history of preserving natural habitats and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested significant public resources toward these goals. These lands and the decisions behind them deserve to be honored.

The potential negative environmental impacts of an oil or natural gas pipeline are too great to risk such treasured investments by Federal taxpayers and State and local communities, and we should not quickly forego the essential public review process that has helped ensure these public treasures are available to future generations.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I don't have any additional speakers.

I would just like to say that energy infrastructure is critical to our economy, yet we cannot simply give the fossil fuel industry a carte blanche to build pipelines that adversely impact conservation and recreation lands.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago, the Armed Services Committee advanced the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 to the House floor with broad bipartisan support. I would like to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for their work in developing this year's bill.

I would also like to thank Congressman Turner, chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member, for his leadership and spirit of bipartisanship this year.

This year's bill includes investments to fill genuine readiness needs and funding that is critical to ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the best cutting-edge resources and best equipment possible to keep them safe when defending our Nation.

I was encouraged that the bill we have passed out of committee directs the Defense Department to provide specific updates and reports on a number of programs and platforms so that we can robustly conduct our oversight responsibility on behalf of the American people.

However, as we consider the bill on the floor today and in the coming days, I remain concerned about how we fund these needs. Substantial budget increases for the Department of Defense at the expense of other vital national programs undermines investments in our national competitiveness and the future of our country and, I believe, makes us less secure over the long term.

Providing our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to carry out their mission is one of our most solemn obligations, but we must also fund these resources responsibly in order to safeguard our economic vitality and our national security.