Jared Golden

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, this amendment seeks to undo a bipartisan agreement to increase authorized funding for our military that the Armed Services Committee collectively concluded is appropriate given the realities of today's evolving national security threats. We are faced with some serious threats globally, such as ongoing terrorist threats; the potential for nuclear proliferation in the Middle East; tensions in the South China Sea; Russia's invasion of a democratic state in Europe; incredible technological advancements that we cannot fall behind on in AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology; increasing competition in space and cyberspace; disinformation campaigns; and data surveillance that strengthen authoritarian regimes and lend themselves to attacks on democratic societies. The amendment that I offered invests in our Navy, which is critically important right now. It invests in missile defense, which is very necessary, given advancing technologies in things like hypersonics, R&D for AI, biotechnology, and quantum computing, as I discussed. Importantly, it increases critical assistance to the Ukrainian military as it fights to defend democracy from Russian aggression. As our military seeks to prepare to grapple with these new, future realities, it must also do so in the face of significant supply chain disruptions resulting from COVID and from rising inflation which my amendment also addresses. The ranking member spoke, I think correctly, about the need to protect those who serve our country, particularly those on the low end of the scale, who are having a very negative impact because of higher grocery costs, higher gas prices, and higher housing costs. I am particularly proud of the bonuses that are in this amendment to look out for them. The bottom line, this $37 billion amendment is bipartisan. It was and remains necessary for the national security of our country. I appreciate that some people might choose different sets of priorities on how best to support our military. There are, in fact, some amendments out there that would set different priorities for how this additional funding should be spent. But rolling back this defense topline overall, for the sake of having a debate about the topline, I believe points us in the wrong direction. That is because of the dangers that we face today and those that we know are just around the corner, which we really can't afford to delay trying to adjust right now. Many people believe that we are falling behind in some of these important issues that I have been talking about like, again, the biotechnology, the quantum computing, missile defense, and other things. We think that this is a good compromise. I appreciate the ability to work across the aisle with my colleagues on the committee. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, in talking about one of the previous amendments, I pointed out this was part of a bipartisan agreement to increase the top line by $37 billion. Compromise really requires people to set different priorities, come to the table, and find an agreement. Many of us on the committee--on both sides of the aisle--really believe strongly, as does the Navy, that we need a larger, more capable fleet force. We have different priorities and we talk about them a lot. For me, I think we need more Flight III destroyers out there--the Navy agrees with me about that. Mr. Gallagher over here is a big proponent of getting new frigate ships out there, they are faster and have great capability. Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Wittman works very closely with Mr. Courtney on submarines and many other things. He made a good point. Giving up these capabilities without replacing them with other capabilities is a problem, but I also agree with the chairman that this is not a top priority program for the Navy. I do have concerns that after just a short period of time they are seeking to shutter this program. It shows, to me, a problem with the Navy in some of their new programs. We have seen this with other things, like the DDG-1000, and I think Congress and our committee need to crack down on this and do a better job with oversight over the Navy to make sure these programs are going to pan out to be worthy investments. It is a shame to see these ships retired after so few years. I know that there are allied nations out there that would like to make use of them. A Senator from Maine, from my State, talks about perhaps repurposing these toward drug interdiction in the southwest hemisphere. Again, we just can't be scrapping these things. It is a lost investment and a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars. That being said, I like the chairman's amendment in that it is seeking to make other important investments with the money, investing in these munition plants in the United States. Putting more money toward the readiness of our Navy force is an identified problem that we have agreed to in a bipartisan way--it is very necessary. I think we have pretty significant workforce readiness problems in the Navy to man those ships, so it is a good repurposing of those funds.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Loring Job Corps Center in Northern Maine on 25 years of dedicated support for young Mainers. Our nation's Job Corps programs are vital for preparing the next generation for employment and furthering their education. It is an honor to support their mission to better the lives of Mainers and their community through technical and academic training. Since its first class of students in 1997, the Loring Job Corps Center has become a bridge to assist over 12,000 young adults earn their high school diplomas, build careers, and obtain employment. None of this would be possible without a team of committed staff, many of whom have been at the Loring Job Corps Center for more than two decades. It is with great pride and appreciation that I congratulate the Loring Job Corps Center on 25 years of success, and I look forward to what the next 25 years brings to this important institution.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. This measure, which passed out of our committee with a strong bipartisan vote, reflects our commitment to strengthening our national security and serving those who serve all of us. I am particularly proud of the efforts of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. This bill reflects the constructive input of members of the subcommittee from both sides of the aisle and makes a strong mark on our national security priorities on, above, and below the seas. For shipbuilding, the bill expands on the budget request to authorize 13 battle force ships. This reflects our committee's focused effort to scrub the budget and our shipbuilding plans to augment our Navy fleet responsibly and consistently in a manner which our industrial base can support to respond to emerging threats around the world. This includes the sustained construction of two Virginia-class submarines a year and continued production of the Columbia-class submarine program. We augment our surface capabilities by authorizing three new DDG 51 destroyers, one of our most capable surface platforms, and authorizing the Navy to seek a new contract for up to 15 ships over the next 5 years. This bill also continues the committee's efforts to provide the Navy and Defense Department with tools needed to concurrently build the new 12 sub Columbia class without suffocating the rest of the Navy's fleet. Specifically, the bill expands the authority of the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to allow for multiyear, continuous production of key components. Recent data from the Navy shows that the use of this authority since our subcommittee enacted it in 2015 has already saved the Navy $1.4 billion in the Columbia program to the tune of over $100 million per boat. This bill will increase those cost savings by expanding the scope of those tools to other components of the platform. The bill also includes full funding to start the new sealift Tanker Security Program, an initiative we passed last year to get more U.S.- built tankers to sea. The bill supports the budget request for the fifth planned National Security Multi-Mission Vessel, another initiative to boost maritime training and sealift capacity. At every step of the way, our subcommittee and the full committee accommodated many bipartisan initiatives throughout this process. That is how the legislative process should work, and we are proud that our committee remains a place for constructive bipartisan collaboration. Madam Speaker, on behalf of our Nation's security, I urge support for the bill.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Speaker, the purpose of my amendment is to call attention to the shortage of VA mental health and substance use disorder facilities. For example, veterans in my home State of Maine must travel hundreds of miles out of State to access long-term treatment facilities. That is just unacceptable. A proposed residential unit at the Togus VA hospital in Maine would provide treatment beds to 24 veterans. But until VA approves this new construction project, veterans in Maine have few options. VA needs to ensure long-term inpatient mental healthcare and substance use disorder services are provided as close to each veteran's home as possible. That is why I am proud to have worked with you, Madam Chair, to secure $20 million above the budget request in the MILCON-VA bill for medical facilities. I thank the gentlewoman for her strong leadership on this and also other critically important issues for our Nation's veterans. In addition to the extra funding, the bill directs VA to prioritize construction that expands access to overnight bed space for veterans seeking mental healthcare. Moving forward, I ask that the committee continue to push VA for answers on progress toward boosting inpatient capacity, prioritizing construction for these lifesaving services.

Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Speaker, I am not sure who outed me on the birthday, but I appreciate the well wishes. Madam Speaker, I thank the subcommittee chairwoman for her strong support on this issue. This is the second year in a row that the chairwoman and her committee and the committee staff have supported an increase like this for inpatient facilities for veterans who are struggling with mental health or substance use issues and need treatment, and I appreciate their advocacy very much.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith for yielding. I want to take a moment to talk about an amendment coming forward today having to do with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I think it is particularly important. Having deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, I want to paint a picture for you. Imagine running a nighttime patrol in the mountains of Afghanistan or on the streets of an Iraqi town. I am sure you can appreciate the intense pressure, the stress, the focus required to do the job right and avoid any mistake that could get you or your buddies killed. Now imagine the patrol is finished. You have got 3 hours to sleep before you need to get up and stand guard for an hour, and after that, you will go on a convoy back to headquarters to get supplies to bring back to the company FOB. But instead of getting rest, you hop on a satellite phone to make a business call to the United States, where it is 4 p.m., to explain to a company why they can't repossess the family car or foreclose on your house, because even though Congress has passed protections for servicemembers, the company insists you signed a waiver of your SCRA protections. Congress shouldn't allow this to happen, Mr. Speaker. This amendment would end the use of arbitration clauses that trick servicemembers into signing away their rights under SCRA. How ridiculous that this amendment is even necessary, but, sadly, it is. I have seen it myself on deployments. It does happen. It has happened to the men and women I served with. Congress should do something about this. These people are being put into stressful financial situations, and their families are, too, while they are serving our country and fighting for us. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to fight for it in conference with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to congratulate the ranking member on his many years of service to our servicemembers on the committee. I thank both the chair and ranking member for their leadership of the committee these past two NDAAs.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, this morning, thousands of Mainers are staying home and doing their part to bend the curve in the fight against the coronavirus. But thousands of healthcare professionals, shipbuilders, grocery store employees, and many others deemed essential got up this morning and went to work. They will do their jobs in this difficult time, despite the risk, because people depend on them. Congress shouldn't be any different. We are about to vote on a bill in response to the pandemic sweeping through our Nation and the growing economic crisis that follows it. Nearly 900 pages long, my office received the text a little over 24 hours ago. I will be honest, many of us are still working to understand this bill in full, portions drafted by lobbyists with loopholes you might drive a Mack truck through. Only time will tell whether this behemoth will fully deliver on its economic promises. It won't fully stop the deepening recession. Only the loosening of the tourniquet will let the blood flow back into our economy, but that is not yet an option. I will, however, support this relief act. It is not a stimulus. It is an emergency relief act providing $100 billion to hospitals.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 535, the PFAS Action Act of 2019. First, I thank Chairman Pallone, Congresswoman Dingell, and the Energy and Commerce Committee for bringing this bill to the floor today. We all know that PFAS contamination is a national issue that has devastated communities across the country. As of October 2019, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection has more than 30,000 records for PFAS at 244 locations across the State of Maine. In my district, areas surrounding the former Loring Air Force Base, Houlton International Airport, Bangor International Airport, the Navy VLF Radio Station in Cutler, and the Bog Brook military training site in Gilead are known to be contaminated with PFAS compounds. Groundwater, surface water, soil, and sediment samples collected from these sites identified the presence of these chemicals, posing a major risk to public health and safety. We also know that emergency response teams are frequently exposed to PFAS in firefighting foams as they work to keep communities safe. Given my State still relies on not only career firefighters but a tremendous amount of volunteer firefighters, the threat of PFAS contamination and the resulting health risks is something I take seriously. That is why I am pleased to see that the bill we are debating today includes a provision that would require the EPA Administrator, with the U.S. Fire Administration, to issue guidance on minimizing the use of firefighting foam and related equipment containing any PFAS by firefighters and other first responders. However, I think it is important for Congress and the public to know just how effective this provision will be on the long-term health of our first responders. That is why I am offering an amendment that would require the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the U.S. Fire Administration, to brief Congress on the effectiveness of the guidance they are providing, to include recommendations for congressional actions that the Administrator determines appropriate to assist efforts to reduce exposure to PFAS by firefighters and other first responders. This is a commonsense amendment to ensure that the Federal Government follows through on its commitment to protect the men and women who enter into harm's way to keep our communities safe. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Madam Speaker, when I took the oath of office in January, I entered Congress prepared to work with President Trump whenever possible and to stand up to him whenever necessary. In my first year, I have ranked among the top five of 235 House Democrats in voting with the president. In a deeply divided and partisan Congress, the opportunities for agreement have often felt limited, but I have sought in good faith to work with him as best I can. Since January, I have received many phone calls and letters from constituents calling upon me to support efforts to impeach the president for a wide range of reasons. I have resisted those efforts and maintained that the impeachment of the President of the United States must be considered as a last resort, reserved only for the most serious crimes and constitutional abuses. Earlier this year, upon the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, I determined that there was no evidence that the president had committed an impeachable offense, and as a result I opposed calls for his impeachment. In my view, the Special Counsel's report identified a pattern of conduct beneath the office of the presidency, specifically: poor judgement, efforts to exert undue influence over an investigation, and attempts to obstruct justice. However, in reviewing the available facts, I did not find sufficient information to support impeachment principally because the Special Counsel did not find adequate evidence that the president or his campaign team were involved in a conspiracy to collude or coordinate with Russian efforts to interfere with U.S. elections. It was my personal judgement that the president's efforts to impede the investigation did not meet the threshold for launching impeachment proceedings. What mattered most in my assessment of the Special Counsel's report was whether or not the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to interfere in our elections--actions that, if proven, would have crossed a clear red line. This concern was rooted in the history of our nation, for there is no doubt that the Founders were fearful of foreign influence in our domestic affairs. In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote: ``Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils [emphasis added]. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?'' Our Framers also understood that impeachment may be necessary to protect American elections. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued that waiting for an election to vote a president out of office might not be a sufficient safeguard, because the president ``might betray his trust to foreign powers.'' Similarly, in debating the need to include a procedure for impeachment in the Constitution, the Framers conceived of how a president might abuse his power in order to win an election. George Mason asked the Constitutional Convention, ``Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?'' I have argued previously that to the extent that my constituents consider the president's actions, most of them believe that the future of our country's leadership and direction should be determined at the ballot box in 2020. I continue to believe that sentiment, but in order for my constituents to voice their opinions on the direction of the country, the security of the 2020 presidential election must be guaranteed, and the integrity of the election must be without question. That is why I find the president's most recent actions with regard to Ukraine and the upcoming election deeply troubling and unacceptable. In evaluating the president's actions, I have consulted the statements of the Founders and of members of Congress who spoke during previous impeachment hearings. I have studied the late law professor Charles Black's monograph Impeachment: A Handbook, written at the height of Watergate. I have considered carefully the depositions of key witnesses, watched hours of the testimony provided in public hearings, and carefully listened to the questions and statements of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The length of my process has frustrated some of my constituents, but on a matter of such gravity, I have felt a responsibility to take the time necessary to gather all available information before making a decision. Here is what we know: in September, the White House released a call summary showing that on July 25, 2019, just one day after the Special Counsel presented his findings about the 2016 election to Congress, President Trump solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into a political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. The president requested this investigation despite the fact that officials in both the United States and Ukraine have rejected the accusations as baseless. The president's intent in the July 25 phone call is clear. He specifically references both the former vice president and his son, Hunter Biden. We also know from depositions taken as part of the House impeachment inquiry that the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was concurrently demanding that Ukrainian officials publicly announce investigations into Burisma, the company where Hunter Biden served as a board member, before the White House would agree to arrange a meeting between President Trump and the new Ukrainian president. Key members of the Trump Administration's diplomatic corps testified under oath that this head of state meeting was contingent upon the announcement Of these politically-motivated investigations. The House investigation clearly unearthed a pattern of evidence that demonstrates the corrupt intent on the part of the president, his personal lawyer, and members of his administration to leverage the powers of the presidency to damage a political opponent and strengthen the president's reelection prospects. Given that the sought-after investigation was solicited from a foreign government, the president's actions are a realization of the Framers' greatest fears: foreign corruption of our electoral process, and a president willing to leverage the powers of his office to benefit his own reelection. This action crossed a clear red line, and in my view, there is no doubt that this is an impeachable act. For this reason, I will vote for Article I of the House resolution to impeach President Trump for an abuse of power. I did not reach this conclusion lightly. Although I find that there is indisputable evidence that the president solicited the interference of a foreign government in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, I believe that the burden of proof for part of the first article, that the president withheld military assistance to Ukraine in order to secure the investigation of Vice President Biden, will be harder to meet in a Senate trial. While I believe it is reasonable to conclude there is sufficient evidence to support the other charges in Article I and justify sending an indictment to the Senate for trial, I also regret that the House did not package the charge regarding the military aid as a separate article, rather than combining it with the president's direct solicitation of a foreign investigation into his political rival. I have advocated for this change to Article I to House leadership, in part because I believe it would provide for clearer debate in the Senate and among the general public. Why exactly the Trump Administration withheld military aid from Ukraine is a question on which reasonable minds--looking at the same set of facts--may reach different conclusions. But there is no such room for disagreement on one stark fact: the President of the United States asked a foreign government to aid in his reelection by soliciting an investigation of his political opponent based upon trumped-up charges. Our Founders feared exactly this situation, a president willing to illegitimately wield the powers of his office against his political opponents in order to secure his reelection. As North Carolina's William Davie remarked at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, ``If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself reelected.'' Article II of the resolution presents a separate charge, that the president ``without lawful cause or excuse,'' obstructed the congressional inquiry into his actions. While I do not dispute that the White House has been provocative in its defiance and sweeping in its claims of executive privilege, I also believe there are legitimate and unresolved constitutional questions about the limits of executive privilege, and that before pursuing impeachment for this charge, the House has an obligation to exhaust all other available options. It is important to note that the House has not attempted to enforce subpoenas for key witnesses to the charges before the president, including those issued to Mick Mulvaney, John Eisenberg, and Russell Vought. The House has also failed to issue subpoenas to other key witnesses, like John Bolton and Rick Perry. In fact, because of a political decision to wrap up impeachment proceedings as quickly as possible, the House recently withdrew a subpoena for Charles Kupperman, a senior aide to John Bolton, and House counsel asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit that would clarify Mr. Kupperman's obligation to testify. At the heart of this matter is a debate about the limits of the president's executive privilege, especially in the face of subpoenas issued by congressional committees conducting an impeachment inquiry. Professor Black has argued that executive privilege has a stronger claim in the earlier stages of the impeachment process, but that by the time of a Senate trial, it should be clearer what specific information is necessary for Congress to conclude its proceedings. I believe that the House must exercise as much restraint as possible in order to avoid setting a dangerous precedent for the future. On the one hand, each of the two political parties has an interest in protecting the executive privilege of the White House; there are some communications that should remain confidential, or at the very least not be released publicly in order to protect our national security. On the other hand, the White House has made broad and in my view excessive claims regarding executive privilege, declaring as early as April of this year that it would contest ``all the subpoenas'' and arguing that Congress is powerless to force the White House to comply. This tension is precisely why our system of government provides for a forum in which disputes between the executive and the legislature over the scope of their respective privileges and powers can be resolved. That forum is the judicial branch. The House can--and in other contexts has--gone to the courts to enforce committee subpoenas. Before wielding our awesome power to impeach a sitting president, we first ought to exhaust available judicial remedies, or--at the very least--give the courts a chance. If the president were to defy a court order to produce documents or to give testimony in an impeachment inquiry, or if he were to encourage his subordinates to do the same, then a charge of obstruction would be appropriate. But while the president's resistance toward our investigative efforts has been frustrating, it has not yet, in my view, reached the threshold of ``high crime or misdemeanor'' that the Constitution demands. For that reason, I will vote against Article II of the House resolution regarding obstruction of Congress. To my constituents: please know that I am deeply dismayed by the circumstances surrounding this inquiry, likely impeachment, and coming trial of the president. Indeed, my concerns about our politics and the health of our democracy have only grown over the course of this process. The divisiveness of this impeachment inquiry has been terrible for our country, just as the Framers knew it would be. I also believe, however, that the president's efforts to solicit a foreign government's involvement in our upcoming election to undermine a political opponent represents a clear and imminent threat to our democracy that cannot go unchecked. I see it as my duty to vote in support of Article I in order to send a clear message to the president, to the country, and to the world that foreign interference in American elections is not acceptable, not welcomed, and will not be tolerated. In the end, I believe the failure of Congress to act in a bipartisan fashion to send this message may represent the greatest threat of all to the health of our democracy. Earlier this year, I expressed my concern that a partisan impeachment would further deepen the political divisions in this country, and that the best recourse would be to rely on our electoral process to litigate our differences. But in this current moment, when the subject of the president's actions has been to corrupt that very process, relying on the next election cannot be the solution. As I square those concerns with our current moment, I take solace in the words of a previous congressman from Maine's Second District who also confronted an impeachment vote during his first term in office. Concerned with the divisive impact of impeachment on the country, then-Congressman William Cohen observed: It has been said that impeachment proceedings will tear this country apart. To say that it will tear the country apart is a proposition I cannot accept. I think what would tear the country apart would be to turn our backs on the facts and our responsibilities to ascertain them. That in my opinion would do far more to start the unraveling of the fabrics of this country and the Constitution than would a strong reaffirmation of that great document. In the face of the evidence before me today, I believe Cohen's words still ring true--but only if we commit ourselves not to become mired in this current sad chapter of deep partisanship in American history. We must turn our eyes to the future and look for ways to address the needs of the country and our constituents. We have made progress in the past few days with the passage of important legislation, like the National Defense Authorization Act and the announcement of a budget deal that keeps government open, accomplishes important healthcare reforms, secures our borders, and funds our military. There remains much more potential in the year ahead, if only we are able to set aside our differences and work together toward common ground for the good of the country.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our Nation's fishermen and -women in support of H.R. 4719, the Funding Instruction for Safety, Health, and Security Avoids Fishing Emergencies Act, the FISH SAFE Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will help ensure that our Nation's fishermen have the resources and training they need to stay safe on the job. I introduced this legislation because I have heard too many stories like Charlie Smith's. Charlie, an offshore lobsterman from Jonesport, Maine, was 25 miles offshore pulling up traps when the rope snapped in his pot hauler. As he tried to grab the line, the hauler ran his fingers through, cutting two of them off. After the initial shock of losing his fingers, he grabbed a bucket of saltwater to numb the pain. After calling the Coast Guard, it took 3 hours for Charlie to get medical attention. This story is one of countless others I hear from the fishermen I represent in Maine who are doing one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, a commercial fisherman is 23 times more likely to die on the job than any other type of worker. From 2000 to 2016, an estimated 204 fishermen have died, and that number has risen to at least 224 in the past 3 years. Despite these statistics, Congress decreased the Federal share of funding for fishing safety training and research grants in the last Coast Guard reauthorization bill. As a result, local organizations like the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association, the Maine Lobstermen's Association, and the Maine Lobstering Union have been left with higher costs to organize and run these lifesaving safety programs. That is why the dean of the House, Congressman Don Young, and I introduced the FISH SAFE Act, which restores the Federal share of fishing safety training back to 75 percent, fixing the decrease to 50 percent created in the most recent Coast Guard reauthorization. The bill would also reauthorize the program, as my colleagues have said, at $3 million per year from fiscal year 2019 through 2021 and make several noncontroversial changes to provisions regarding authorities related to the former United States Lighthouse Service. From Alaska to Maine, fishermen put their lives on the line every day to provide for their families and our communities. On the fishing piers of Stonington, Jonesport, and Deer Isle, I have met too many fishermen and lobstermen who have sustained serious injuries--lost fingers, deep scars, concussions--or have had close calls on the job. That is why I am so grateful to organizations like the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association, the Maine Lobstermen's Association, and the Maine Lobstering Union for stepping up and providing fishing communities with the safety training to ensure that guys like Charlie can reduce the risk to life and limb when out at sea. This bill is a step to make sure that our Nation's workers, including fishermen and -women, know that we have their backs. I thank Congressman Don Young for working with me on this bill. This, actually, is not the first bill that we have worked together on. I appreciate the opportunity to work with him always, as well as Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, all the members of the committee, and, in particular, their staffs, as well, for moving this bill quickly through committee. We think it is particularly timely and important for coastal communities. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Velazquez for yielding me the time. Since coming to Congress 10 months ago, I have been focused on protecting jobs in the State of Maine, and that means helping small businesses succeed. Thousands of small businesses in my State have launched or grown with help from small business development centers, or, as you heard them referred to, SBDCs. Just last year, SBDCs served over 1,500 small businesses in my State, helped to start 136 new businesses, and worked to protect or create more than 800 jobs. Here are just a few of the small businesses that I have heard from directly in my district about this program: SBDCs helped The Maine Meal in Skowhegan purchase a building in order to launch their new business; The Milk House in Monmouth received the accounting and tax advice that they needed to help grow their business from an SBDC adviser, an important farming and dairy industry right there; SBDCs helped Lost Valley Ski Area in Auburn, just across the river from my hometown, to develop a business plan so that they could secure the financing they needed to acquire and continue the Lost Valley Ski Area, which is very important to our community, particularly during the winter months. I have visited each of these businesses and seen their work firsthand. These are just a few of the thousands of SBDC success stories in the State of Maine. Given that small business development centers are the largest resource partner to SBA, it is particularly important for Congress to keep the program up to date and performing at a high level for small businesses throughout the country. In Maine, the State's lead SBDC runs 11 outreach locations in my congressional district alone, in partnership with regional economic development entities, enabling small businesses in Maine's rural communities to access valuable assistance. While the centers have had many successes, we have also learned lessons about ways to improve the programs in the year since it was last reauthorized. That is why I am excited to lead this bill, alongside Vice Ranking Member Radewagen, to reauthorize the program. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank her for her support of the bill. It has been a pleasure to work with her. The Small Business Development Centers Improvement Act of 2019 will make a number of positive changes to improve oversight, better enable SBDCs to partner with other organizations, bolster the center accreditation process, and improve the voice of SBDCs in setting the program's direction. I am particularly glad that the bill will help broaden rural small business access to this assistance by clarifying that centers are allowed to market and advertise their services. Rural access to SBA resources is key for States like Maine and many rural communities all over the country. Finally, the bill will reauthorize appropriations at the level of $175 million for fiscal years 2020 through 2023, reaffirming Congress' commitment to the program. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the chairwoman and the ranking member and, in particular, their staffs for forging a bipartisan path forward on the reauthorization of this program. I would also like to thank Vice Ranking Member Radewagen for coleading this bill with me, as well as Mr. Hagedorn, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Fitzpatrick for joining me as cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill to keep the SBDC program up to date for the good of America's small businesses.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Clarifying the Small Business Runway Extension Act, a bill that I am proud to lead alongside the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber). Mr. Speaker, Americans expect our government to work efficiently and to follow through. They believe, and I agree with them, that when Congress passes a law, Federal agencies should implement it. Our goal with this bill is quite simple: to make sure that the Small Business Administration respects the will of Congress as expressed in the Small Business Runway Extension Act of 2018, a law that was enacted in December 2018. The bipartisan law was designed to ease the transition for businesses between SBA's small and other-than-small categories for the purposes of determining Federal contracting preferences. Prior to the law, SBA evaluated eligibility by looking at 3 years of a business' gross receipts. In the law, SBA was instructed to extend that period to 5 years. The idea is that year-to-year changes in a small business' receipts will now be less likely to create a sudden loss of eligibility for this important contracting preference for small businesses. As I have heard many times from small business owners in Maine, certainty is key to growth, and that is what the 5-year calculation is designed to provide. Unfortunately, SBA has dragged its feet implementing the law, claiming that the fact that the law lacked an explicit effective date meant that SBA did not have to implement it immediately. Aside from being a questionable reading of the law, SBA's delay has created a lost opportunity to improve the ability of SBA-eligible small businesses to transition and grow in a predictable and sustainable way. As chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Contracting and Infrastructure of the House Committee on Small Business, Congressman Stauber and I heard firsthand from experts and small business owners at a March hearing about the uncertainty that has been created by this delay in SBA's implementation of the 5-year change. While we followed up on that hearing with a letter to SBA in April, we have yet to resolve this issue, so we are turning to a legislative solution. Our Nation's small businesses should be able to access the contracting opportunities that they deserve. The bill will require SBA to issue implementing regulations no later than December of this year while creating a transition period for businesses to grow and compete. Mr. Speaker, I recognize Mr. Stauber, as well as Chair Velazquez and Ranking Member Chabot, for their bipartisan work on this issue. I particularly thank Congressman Stauber. I think the opportunity to work together in our subcommittee has been a great one. I appreciate his bipartisan focus and his desire to push through a real solution for small businesses. I had a great time, as well, out in Minnesota, having field hearings about small business issues. I can't wait to have him up in Maine in the near future. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Let's make sure there is no doubt about Congress' intent in this area.

Mr. GOLDEN

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 3055. This amendment would increase by about $5 million the medical facilities account. I did want to talk about a specific problem. I think that most rural States and communities understand that when it comes to trying to take care of our veterans, specifically, those who are struggling with mental health issues, and perhaps substance use disorder issues as well, it is an issue of care closer to home and access to care. When we have a veteran in a State like Maine who is in need of acute mental healthcare services and needs long-term inpatient mental healthcare, it has become known in the veterans community in Maine that that care is only available to veterans, at closest, in Bedford, Massachusetts, or perhaps as far away as New York or even further in order to get access to those beds. It is the same when they are in need of long-term substance use treatment programs. I have seen time and time again, working with veterans who are in need of those services, that this is a significant problem. It is a barrier to care. It keeps people from coming in the door at the VA to ask for help. It is not just an issue in rural areas among veterans. The problem is mirrored in the greater community. This is not an instance where veterans can go to the community to get long-term inpatient care because, to begin with, the beds aren't there in rural America. I think this is an instance where we really need the VA to step up to try to make sure that every State has a baseline capability to provide long-term inpatient mental healthcare services and substance use disorder services to veterans as close to their homes and their communities as possible. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), and I thank her for working with me on this issue and for all the work that she is doing on the committee. I also thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for joining me on this. I know Idaho is in the same boat as Maine on this one. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I again thank Congressman Fulcher for joining me in this. It is critically important. I think he made a great point. With care closer to home, it is about relationships, and it is about trust when serving a population like veterans. Also, when talking about things like mental health and substance use treatment care programs, that kind of familiarity and trust goes an awfully long way. I have talked to healthcare professionals who talk about continuity of care as well. Even in this age, with the internet, when trying to coordinate continuity of care from New York to Maine, when a veteran steps outside of that inpatient care, it becomes very difficult. This would all be solved, I think, or at least be much more efficient, if we had the ability to take care of our veterans in our home States, like Maine and Idaho. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOLDEN

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

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 3055. Mr. Chair, it is frequently said that working men and women feel left out by their government's decisionmaking process. Too often in Washington, those with the greatest financial means can get the closest to the political, governmental, and regulatory process and, therefore, be better able to influence it. Just as bad is that, in this gridlock political machine, what little action that does take place often takes the path of least resistance. So when a species of whale is at risk of extinction for a whole slew of complex reasons--whether it be the overfishing that took place more than a century ago, climate change and warming waters that wreak havoc upon a whale's habitat, seismic air gun testing for oil and natural gas, deadly ship strikes by a large shipping industry, or the risk of entanglement in a lobsterman's fishing gear--who, and to what degree, does Washington regulate each? And who has a seat at the table to ensure that the process behind such decisions is fair and equitable? Do we believe that a small group of fishermen in Maine have as strong a place at the table as does the fossil fuel or shipping industry, or the governmental affairs director with a K Street office in Washington? I don't think so. So NOAA, facing the threat of lawsuits, has rushed ahead using a decision support tool that was developed for the purpose of reducing ship strikes by the Navy and fed that tool with old data and hasty assumptions and have come forward to require Maine lobstermen to achieve a 60 percent risk reduction in their fishery. What assumptions you might ask? Maine's own Department of Marine Resources argues the tool is flawed because areas with a lot of fishing gear but few whales are labeled ``high risk,'' and areas with a lot of whales and less fishing gear are considered ``low risk.'' This scientific tool uses outdated habitat data from the mid- Atlantic, which is far away and different than the gulf of Maine. When attributing responsibility for injury or death of whale to fishing gear of an unknown origin, NOAA assumes an equal distribution between U.S. and Canadian gear, despite strong, recent scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary. And the data used do not accurately reflect the distribution shift of right whales since the year 2010. Recent studies have established firm links between warming waters in the gulf of Maine and a 90 percent reduction of the plankton that right whales eat, calling into question whether the whales have stopped visiting the warming, plankton-depleted waters of eastern Maine entirely, which would greatly reduce the likelihood that any whale be entangled in Maine lobstermen's gear. It is reasonable to ask NOAA to allow its decision support tool to undergo a peer-review process before enforcing punitive regulations upon Maine fisherman. Maine's Commissioner of the Department of Marine Resources has said that ``peer-reviewed science is the cornerstone of the decisionmaking process.'' Apparently, not in this case. This amendment would require NOAA to use relevant data and an effective tool to ensure that its regulations target areas of high risk and yield the most effective conservation benefits possible to protect the right whale without unfairly burdening Maine lobstermen. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that the person who runs this program for NOAA has actually recently said that they intend to move forward with regulations, then do a peer review, and then, perhaps, come back with a different conclusion. I think that they have got this backwards. They should be doing it the other way around, and that is what is at the heart of this amendment. I would urge support at this time for the amendment, as well as for the Moulton amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), and I thank her for joining me on this amendment and for her leadership on behalf of Maine fisheries.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Kim, I have an amendment at the desk.