Elizabeth Esty

Ms. ESTY of Connecticut

Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Garamendi, for our shared commitment to American manufacturing and to ensure that, once again, America will be the envy of the world for a fantastic infrastructure and transportation system. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), who is my friend and colleague, to continue our discussion on this the second day of National Infrastructure Week to talk about the tremendous need that we have in this country to do a better job to ensure our citizens get to work on time and safely and get home in the same way.

Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Infrastructure Week. I do this proudly as the daughter and granddaughter of civil engineers--men who built bridges, roads, airports, and dams all across this country and all across the world. However, Mr. Speaker, sadly, today I need to recognize that America is not getting a good grade in infrastructure. In fact, just this last month, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave America's infrastructure a grade of D-plus. Now, before we despair, we can be happy it is not as bad as 4 years ago when it was a D. But there is no parent in America who will cheer when their child comes home and says: I made it all the way from a D to a D-plus. America can and must do better, and this Congress needs to fulfill its duty under the Constitution and under the basic tenets of what a government is supposed to do by meeting the needs of the American people. There is no better time than now, and there is no better place than here, in the people's House, for us to take up this call because, at the end of the day, infrastructure is about jobs. It is about putting people to work right now replacing those bridges, roads, dams, airports, and rails. But, more importantly, it is about getting people to work safely and on time tomorrow and getting home in time to see the soccer game. So we are going to go through, a little bit, some of what these grades were. So the composite grade of D-plus is made up of roads, D; and bridges, C-plus. Many Americans will remember an August night 10 years ago in 2007, in the Twin Cities. People were driving across a heavily traveled bridge on I-35. The bridge collapsed, sending people crashing down into the river. Twenty Americans lost their lives when that bridge collapsed. In my own State of Connecticut, people remember when the Mianus River Bridge collapsed on I-95, the major backbone of the entire Northeast corridor. Fortunately, the bridge collapsed in the middle of the night, and only three people died. Had it been during the middle of the day, that number would have been far higher. Mr. Speaker, America should not wait, nor should this Congress wait, until bridges collapse or trains derail until we fix our aging infrastructure. It is the backbone of what government is supposed to do. Our roads are congested. In 2014, engineers estimated that congestion cost American commuters $160 billion in a single year. For the average commuter in an urban area, that was 42 hours of their lives--a full workweek. So it is not just dollars and aggravation, it is polluted air, and it is broken axles. But it is also time, which for many Americans is the most valuable thing we have. We want to see our families. We work hard in this country, and we in Congress should be working harder to make sure that our hardworking people we represent can get home on time to see their families. So that is where we are. That is where we are with bridges and roads. I had a constituent come up to me in the nearby city of Waterbury last week. We were looking at an aging infrastructure intersection. She said: I came over here just to tell you that I hit such a big pothole last week. I have got a couple-hundred-dollar repair bill for my car, and I don't have the money to pay for it. You have got to tell those people in Washington we need to fix things so I don't have to worry about a pothole ruining my car and making me unable to pay my bills. Mr. Speaker, too many of our bridges are structurally deficient-- almost 4 in 10 of our bridges. Thirty-nine percent are 50 years old or older. That is the structural lifespan of a bridge--50 years. I drive across some of those every single day, and nearly 10 percent of the Nation's bridges are graded structurally deficient. Just to say, they are really not safe. It is not just bridges and roads that are in dire need of repairs. We also have our rail system. We saw from my colleague, Mr. Payne, that rail systems are a problem. Our transit systems are in desperate need of upgrade. Passenger rail, we don't even have a full estimate of what that would take to bring it up to speed. We have passenger rail that runs through Connecticut; 100,000 people commute every single day. The commute right now from New Haven, Connecticut, to New York City is as long as it was 100 years ago. Surely America can do better. It is not just passenger rail and freight rail. We should say a good word about freight rail here. Freight rail is the reason we are up from a D-plus to a D. Freight has moved up to a B, so we can be glad about freight's grade this past year. We also have airports. Now, I don't know how many of you have been through airports recently. If you have, you might even be surprised they are up to a D and not lower than that. American airports are congested. Many of them are aging and are in need of significant work. Congestion at airports is growing. Twenty-four of the top 30 airports in the U.S. are experiencing the ``Thanksgiving-peak traffic volume'' once a week. That used to be a term that was used once a year. American airports across the country are serving 2 million passengers a year. I can tell you about a recent time I landed in LaGuardia Airport in New York. It used to be considered one of the Nation's shining examples. People came and arrived in LaGuardia and were amazed and impressed with this great country. One of the last times I was in LaGuardia Airport, I was greeted by a blue plastic tarp duct-taped to the ceiling inside the terminal, funneled down into a 30-gallon trash can to collect the water that was leaking through the terminal. That is not the way a great country greets its own citizens, or any others, to one of the world's great cities. In addition to the work we need to do on our airports, we have our water infrastructure. This is our clean water system, and it is also our wastewater system. According to the most recent Clean Watersheds Needs Survey, the EPA reports that the total wastewater and storm water treatment capital needs in the next 25 years is $271 billion; yet the Federal Government has been contributing less and less to that growing need to make sure that our rivers and streams and waterways are clean. All of America saw, last year, what happened when one single community, Flint, Michigan, failed to add a single corrosion-prevention agent to its clean water and ended up literally poisoning its children with lead. It is time for America to do better. There are costs when we don't invest in this country. I like to think of it more or less like the roof on America's house. Now, many of you may know it is pretty exciting when you put an addition on your house, but it is not exciting to replace your roof; but if you don't replace your roof and it keeps leaking, ultimately, you lose the entire house. The ceiling collapses. That is where we are as a country right now. We have stopped fixing America's roof. We have stopped it in bridges and roads. We have stopped in it airports and rail. It is time for us to get going. I will tell you that I am encouraged by reports coming from the new administration about making a serious commitment to invest in America's infrastructure, but there are some things that we need to keep in mind when we are talking about American infrastructure. One is to remember that it used to be called by another name. It used to be called public works. There is a reason it was public works. There is a reason it wasn't private works. So I think it is certainly appropriate that we look to do public-private partnerships, to leverage the power of private investors to fix some of our aging infrastructure, and to build some new infrastructure. But we should make no mistake: This country became great, it was transformed by the Interstate Highway System, literally linking America from end to end. But we cannot expect, nor should we think, that the basic public infrastructure of America is going to be able to be outsourced to financiers in New York City. If that were the case, they would have already done it. These are basic public works where we need real dollar investments, and I can assure the administration there are many of us in Congress who are ready to move forward with that. When we are talking about infrastructure, there is another piece I like to remind people we need, because part of infrastructure is moving goods and services, getting people to work and back, getting things to markets and things they want to buy and put on the table. But the 21st century is going to be built on information, and information is what is moving most in this society and creating much of the value. So if we need information, that means we need energy and we need internet everywhere. So in addition to infrastructure and transportation, we need to have infostructure. We need to have reliable, cybersecure, sustainable energy systems across America, and we need to have internet available for every single American to participate in this exciting new economy. So we have infrastructure, we have infostructure, and we have public works. Mr. Speaker, the roof of America's house is leaking. The time is now for this body, the people's House, to come together to work on real transportation and infrastructure bills. We have dozens of them that are available in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and other committees. But the time has passed; the time has passed for us to wait, to pass the buck, to delay fixing the roof because the leaks are getting worse. The American people are suffering. When it is your family that is on the bridge that is structurally deficient, you would want, if your family crosses that bridge every day, you would want to make sure that it gets fixed and not wait until it falls down. This is the sort of basic function government used to do without a question. It is what used to happen in this Chamber because people didn't care whether there was a D or an R after their name. Bridges and roads don't have D's or R's after their names. They are not affiliated with political parties, nor should they be. It is time for us to do our jobs and set aside whatever partisan bickering there may be in other venues. On this, on bridges and roads, rail systems and dams, water infrastructure and infostructure, I ask my colleagues to please join me--join all of us--and make this, National Infrastructure Week, the start of the 115th Congress' commitment to do right by the American people, to make these investments, to do the sort of compromise and negotiation that this body is supposed to be doing to meet the needs of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ESTY of Connecticut

Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. ESTY of Connecticut

Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. 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.

Ms. ESTY

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY

Ms. ESTY. 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

Ms. ESTY. 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,

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY

Ms. ESTY. 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.

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

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY

Ms. ESTY. 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.

Ms. ESTY. 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.