Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when President Trump withdrew from the Paris climate accord last week, I was in Germany meeting with some of that country's top officials, legislators, and business leaders. In our conversations, many of my German counterparts rightly emphasized that climate change is a major world threat, with potential to cause widespread and long-lasting damage if not acted upon.

So the news of President Trump's unilateral decision drew sharp criticism and deep concern. Our longtime allies viewed withdrawal as America ceding international leadership and turning its back on the world.

Indeed, withdrawing from the Paris climate accord reduces our ability to help shape a solution to the climate change crisis and retreats from our responsibility to serve as a global leader. It also ignores the role we, here in the United States, play in contributing to climate change.

I stand in strong support of American businesses and State and local leaders across our country who see beyond the shortsighted approach of this decision and will remain committed to furthering the goals of the Paris accord.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, many of us heard of the Marines United Facebook page for the first time. On this page, women marines found that their intimate photos were posted without their knowledge and without their consent. Some had no idea these photos had ever been taken.

Beneath the photos, marine members of the Facebook group wrote obscene and abusive comments about their comrades. This betrayal of marines by marines disgracefully disrespects fellow members, sows the seeds of distrust, and undermines the unit cohesion so essential to military readiness, putting our national security at risk.

Today we bring a bill to the floor to make sure military members who have broadcasted or distributed certain private images are held accountable. H.R. 2052 creates a separate article under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that specifically criminalizes the wrongful sharing of intimate photos without explicit consent to do so.

H.R. 2052 sends a clear message to all servicemembers and to our military leadership that this kind of abusive behavior will not and must not be tolerated. Members from both sides of the aisle have come together, and I thank Representatives McSally and Speier for their leadership in support of this commonsense legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, Police Chief William Taylor of my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts, said:

``Each day two to three people overdose from opioids in Lowell. . . . The introduction of illicit fentanyl has been the game changer. . . . `'

In 2015, Massachusetts ranked second nationally per capita in deaths from synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which can be up to 50 times stronger than heroin. But Massachusetts is far from alone. Between 2014 and 2015, nationwide deaths involving synthetic opioids tragically rose 72 percent.

That is why I partnered with Representative Brian Fitzpatrick to introduce the INTERDICT Act, which would provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection with enhanced chemical screening devices and scientific support to detect and intercept synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

I thank Representative Fitzpatrick and our Senate counterparts for their partnership, and I urge all our colleagues to support the INTERDICT Act.

To effectively combat the nationwide opioid crisis requires a comprehensive, cooperative, fully funded effort. The INTERDICT Act would be a powerful tool in eliminating synthetic opioids from the equation.

Mr. Speaker, since President Trump took office, I have heard from hundreds of my constituents who are concerned about attacks by this new administration on the Environmental Protection Agency and the potential, long-term negative impacts on public health, clean water, clean air, and our Nation's work to play a leading role in combating climate change.

Thelma from Lowell wrote:

Without EPA and its mission to protect our water and air, I

fear that all the work done over the past 40 years will be

erased.

Ingrid from Groton wrote:

I need to be able to trust that the EPA will protect our

air, water, land, and health. But Scott Pruitt has worked so

closely with polluters, even suing the EPA more than a dozen

times, how can we trust that he will protect our health and

safety?

And demonstrating just how personal an issue this is for many people, Katherine from Acton wrote to me:

This is my first time writing a congressional

Representative, and I am proud to be doing so now, though my

motivation is less heartening. As a mother of two precocious

young kids, I have little time to do much beyond the

essentials of daily living, much less writing a letter, so I

assure you this one is written out of a feeling of necessity.

She went on to say:

Environmental pollution is real and in our backyards. It

contaminates our air, our water, and our land. Cleanup of

these pollutants is extremely difficult, if not impossible,

and the implications for our health are astounding.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will do nothing to assuage the fears of my constituents and millions of others around the country who support independent, unbiased, science-based decisionmaking at the EPA, which is essential to protecting public health, clean water, and combating climate change.

Instead of promoting sound science, this legislation would weaken the scientific expertise of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, the independent body that reviews scientific and technical information used in EPA decisionmaking and provides scientific advice to the EPA Administrator.

If Congress really wants to promote sound science, I would urge consideration of the Scientific Integrity Act, legislation that I introduced along with Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and Representatives Lowenthal and Tonko. Our bill will protect scientific research at Federal agencies from political interference and special interests. This legislation currently has 93 cosponsors, and it deserves debate in this House.

The majority is trying to claim that the legislation before us today helps us achieve goals similar to those of the Scientific Integrity Act, but my constituents aren't fooled.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1431.

Mr. Speaker, for the third week in a row, Republicans are back on the floor of the House of Representatives seeking to overturn environmental protections for our Nation's deeply valued public lands, this time attacking wildlife protections for iconic species living in national wildlife refuges in Alaska.

This is not a new issue for me or my constituents. My late husband, Senator Paul Tsongas, helped write the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. He worked on a bipartisan basis with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska to craft legislation that balanced conservation with responsible economic development for Alaskans, including oil exploration, mining, timber harvesting, and sport hunting.

But he also stated on the Senate floor, back in 1980: ``Nature made the wilderness and wildlife in Alaska majestic during hundreds of thousands of years. Man''--and, I would add, woman--``is challenged merely to respect and preserve that natural majesty.''

He also spoke on the Senate floor about conversations at the dinner table with our then 6-year-old daughter, who asked what her father was doing to protect endangered species. Well, our daughter has grown now, but here we are 37 years later in Congress debating if that bipartisan law crafted with my late husband allows hunters to shoot bear cubs and wolf pups in their den on a national wildlife refuge.

My colleagues are correct that ANILCA, as that law is known, and other Federal laws give the State of Alaska unique privileges and responsibilities to oversee wildlife management on public lands; however, this is not a carte blanche. There has never been a right to set policies on national wildlife refuges that are inconsistent with bedrock environmental laws or ANILCA's mandate to conserve species and habitats in their natural diversity on wildlife refuges.

I fully support the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to no longer turn a blind eye to harmful practices that are detrimental to nationally significant species and are not rooted in science-based wildlife management practices.

If my colleagues so desperately want to authorize a right to shoot bears from a helicopter in a wildlife refuge, I would be happy to recommend some video games. I hear virtual reality headsets these days make it just like the real thing. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Republican majority pushed through legislation attacking clean air, clean water, and blocking public transparency into payments made to foreign governments by oil and mining companies.

Today we are considering legislation that will roll back opportunities for the American people to have a say in how our Nation's public lands are managed. The idea that there should be national public lands that belong to and are managed on behalf of the American people is a value that dates back to the founding of our country and is embedded in our Constitution.

Generation after generation of Americans has endorsed the idea that our public lands should be managed to balance many competing uses: recreation, responsible economic development, sustainable resource extraction, renewable energy, military purposes, and conservation of historic American landscapes, just to name a few.

We all want to see this important aspect of our national heritage managed in an effective and efficient manner, balancing conservation for future generations with sustainable productivity for local communities.

The Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0, as it is known, will help us better achieve this balance on the approximately 245 million acres of land managed by the BLM. As American citizens, we all have a right to provide input on how we would like to see these public lands managed; but the current process for doing so is slow, lacks transparency, and fails to incorporate over 30 years of updated science and understanding of our changing climate. In fact, this process hasn't been substantially updated since the Reagan administration. States, local governments, and other stakeholders all agreed that the process was in need of updates.

BLM agreed with this consensus and began a 2-year review, receiving over 3,000 public comments on what changes needed to be made. Two years, 3,000 public comments, this was no midnight regulation. Their final product, which the resolution before us today would permanently overturn, increases transparency, enhances the role of science and decisionmaking, and strengthens the role of the public's voice earlier in this planning process.

Planning 2.0 also upholds the Federal Land Policy and Management Act's commitment to States, local government, and tribes in land management decisions.

The Bureau of Land Management made several changes in between the draft rule and the final rule to clarify coordination requirements and promote consistency with local land use plans, all in response to concerns raised through the public input process.

According to a BLM fact sheet on the final rule, ``The new rule does not change the special relationship and opportunities provided by statute for cooperating agencies,'' and, ``The final rule establishes several new opportunities for coordination between the BLM and our government partners.''

We should be working together on proposals that strengthen management of our public lands, balance conservation with economic development, and provide sustainable benefits to the people who rely on them for their economic livelihoods. The resolution before us today flies in the face of these goals.

I urge my colleagues to reject this Congressional Review Act resolution and vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution and efforts to roll back important protections for not only our environment, but for American taxpayers.

Our Nation's public lands belong to all Americans, and they are managed to balance many competing uses: recreation; responsible economic development; sustainable resource extraction; yes, renewable energy; military purposes; and conservation of historic American landscapes, just to name a few. As such, they should be subject to strong national standards that protect our shared water, shared lands, wildlife, and the multiple uses they support.

It is also critical to remember that use of our public lands is a privilege, not a right; and companies seeking to exercise that privilege, whether they be fossil fuel companies or clean energy companies developing wind, solar, and geothermal projects, should be held to a very high standard to preserve and protect resources that belong to all of the American people.

We must also make sure that the taxpayers get a fair return for the use and development of our commonly shared resources. The Mineral Leasing Act, as written by Congress, calls upon the Secretary of the Interior to prevent the waste of oil and gas resources on public lands.

The Bureau of Land Management's methane waste rule achieves all of these shared goals: the rule prevents the waste of resources that belong to all American people, which, by law, it is required to do; it reduces the amount of greenhouse gas pollution coming off our public lands; and it increases royalty payments to Federal taxpayers and the States.

The methane waste rule also supports job creation and American innovation in new technologies. The methane mitigation industry is a growing and emerging field that uses modern technologies to identify and capture wasteful emissions. In fact, a 2014 report commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund found that methane mitigation companies provide jobs in 46 States and support 102 manufacturing and assembly locations, with 59 percent of all companies across the industry being small businesses.

If Republicans had brought this resolution before the House Natural Resources Committee, we could have more thoroughly examined its negative impacts on job creation. Instead, it was rushed to the House floor with only this 1 hour of debate.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban that keeps apart families like that of Luca Freschi, who had planned to move to Harvard Medical School in March but whose Iranian wife would not be able to join him.

Mr. Speaker, since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, millions of Americans have gained access to valuable healthcare services, and every American has seen their health insurance benefits improve.

While there are ways the Affordable Care Act can be improved, we cannot afford to go back to the days when big insurance companies had the power to decide what care Americans could receive, deny coverage to children with diagnosed conditions, cancel coverage

when people got sick, and place limits on the amount of care people can receive.

Last week, Carol Lodi from Harvard, Massachusetts, in my district, called and told her story. She and her husband gained healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act. She is 61. Her husband is 63. They are self-employed. She said: ``If we lose the insurance, we don't know what we'll do.''

Mr. Speaker, please listen to the Lodi family and millions of other families like them. Don't turn your back on them and make America sick again.

Article VII:

``The ratification of the conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.''

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

Mr. Speaker, following the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the United States and the international community demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces under the threat of military action. After Saddam Hussein defied calls to withdraw from Kuwait, the United States, along with a broad coalition of European, regional, and global allies, began Operation Desert Shield, followed by Operation Desert Storm, a 100-hour land war which expelled the Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Approximately 700,000 members of the American Armed Forces served as part of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield. Of those, 293 died in theater and 148 were killed in action.

The 2015 National Defense Authorization Act authorized the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield War Memorial Association to establish a memorial as a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia. This honors the members of the American Armed Forces who served and those who made the ultimate sacrifice in support of our country.

The joint resolution before us today approves the general location of the memorial so that it is in close proximity to the National Mall and other nationally significant war memorials, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.

This resolution is an opportunity for the country to come together and thank the servicemembers who fought in the Gulf, those whose lives have been forever changed by their experience in this war, and those who did not return.

I support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast a vote on Roll Call 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 on February 2, 2015 and February 3, 2015. I was in Massachusetts during the severe weather that struck New England and was unable travel to Washington.

Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted Yes on Roll Call 51 (H.R. 361), Roll Call 52 (H.R. 615); H.R. 623 (Roll Call 53) and Roll Call 56 (approving the Journal). I would have voted No on Roll Call 54 (previous question on H. Res. 70), and Roll Call 55 (H. Res. 70).

I would have voted in favor of H.R. 361 in order to enhance the medical preparedness of the Department of Homeland Security. I would have voted in favor of H.R. 615 in order to increase the ability of agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to communicate more effectively with each other. Finally, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 623 in order to determine possible ways to use social media to effectively prepare for and respond to natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

I would have voted against Roll Call 54, a previous question. Had Roll Call 54 failed, Democrats would have been allowed to bring the American Manufacturing Jobs for Students Act to the floor. I would have voted against H. Res. 70, a resolution that allowed the majority to bring a bill to the floor that would repeal the Affordable Care Act. Should the repeal bill become law, funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program would be ended and 3 million young Americans would be kicked of their parents' health plans. Further, an estimated 10 million people would lose their insurance coverage.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 161, the so-called Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act.

My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country, faces serious energy challenges. We need careful and strategic long- term planning in order to lower energy prices and increase reliability. Increasing access to additional sources of natural gas could help address some of New England's energy challenges, including energy prices, which have historically been above the national average.

However, this legislation would move us in the wrong direction. This bill would force FERC to rush decisionmaking, including environmental reviews and assessments of the need for natural gas, while also hobbling decisions regarding the appropriate size of the proposed pipeline. It would turn FERC into a superpermitting agency, an authority that FERC neither wants nor has the expertise to carry out.

In my home district, we are currently navigating the FERC process that this bill purports to improve. The company is proposing to build a new 250-mile natural gas pipeline that crosses three States, including seven communities that I represent. I have heard from hundreds of my constituents expressing their concerns with this project.

Construction of the pipeline could jeopardize local wildlife and will impact both State and federally designated conservation lands, as well as Massachusetts' scarce farmland.

Thanks to extensive public review and input, the pipeline route has already been adjusted to minimize some of the environmental impacts, but there are still many outstanding concerns that deserve careful scrutiny. The proposed route still passes through local farmland, parks, wildlife management areas, wetlands, near schools, and across drinking water supplies.

My constituents have been grateful for a process that has given them the time to provide input. This bill would short-circuit that process and shortchange my constituents' right to be heard.

I proposed an amendment to this legislation with my colleague Mr. McGovern that would exempt any pipeline from the arbitrary timelines established in the bill if the proposed route crosses Federal, State, or local land designated for conservation or recreation. However, the majority blocked this simple amendment from coming to the floor and receiving an up-or-down vote.

In Massachusetts, we have a longstanding history of preserving national habitats and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested significant public resources towards these goals. Members should have been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not we should allow for a thorough review process to protect State investments.

On behalf of my constituents, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

``. . . a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two- thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.''