Carol Shea-Porter

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, due to an illness, I regret that I was unable to make votes from December 19, 2018 to December 21, 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 446, Roll Call No. 463, Roll Call No. 467, Roll Call No. 468, Roll Call No. 469, Roll Call No. 470, Roll Call No. 472, Roll Call No. 494, Roll Call No. 497, and Roll Call No. 498. I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 436, Roll Call No. 437, Roll Call No. 438, Roll Call No. 439, Roll Call No. 440, Roll Call No. 441, Roll Call No. 442, Roll Call No. 443, Roll Call No. 444, Roll Call No. 445, Roll Call No. 447, Roll Call No. 448, Roll Call No. 449, Roll Call No. 450, Roll Call No. 451, Roll Call No. 452, Roll Call No. 453, Roll Call No. 454, Roll Call No. 455, Roll Call No. 456, Roll Call No. 457, Roll Call No. 458, Roll Call No. 459, Roll Call No. 460, Roll Call No. 461, Roll Call No. 462, Roll Call No. 464, Roll Call No. 465, Roll Call No. 466, Roll Call No. 471, Roll Call No. 473, Roll Call No. 474, Roll Call No. 475, Roll Call No. 476, Roll Call No. 477, Roll Call No. 478, Roll Call No. 479, Roll Call No. 480, Roll Call No. 481, Roll Call No. 482, Roll Call No. 483, Roll Call No. 484, Roll Call No. 485, Roll Call No. 486, Roll Call No. 487, Roll Call No. 488, Roll Call No. 489, Roll Call No. 490, Roll Call No. 491, Roll Call No. 492, Roll Call No. 493, Roll Call No. 495, Roll Call No. 496, Roll Call No. 499, and Roll Call No. 500.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a column by Max Boot, conservative, and very well known. I am quoting completely. ``President Trump is willing, under duress, to briefly and begrudgingly admit that Russian meddling took place in 2016 before reverting to calling it a `big hoax.' But he always maintains that the plot against America had no impact; he describes it as a `Democrat excuse for losing the '16 election.' Faithfully echoing the President, other Republicans, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, say it's `clear' that Russian interference `didn't have a material effect on our elections.' White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders even claims that the U.S. intelligence community reached that conclusion. ``Not quite. Here is the intelligence community's assessment, partially declassified in 2017: `We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The U.S. intelligence community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze U.S. political processes or U.S. public opinion.''' To continue the story that Max wrote: ``When then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo claimed last fall that the `intelligence community's assessment is that the Russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the election,' his own agency rebuked him. ``While the intelligence agencies are silent on the impact of Russia's attack, outside experts who have examined the Kremlin campaign, which included stealing and sharing Democratic Party emails, spreading propaganda online, and hacking State voter rolls, have concluded that it did affect an extremely close election decided by fewer than 80,000 votes in three States. Clint Watts, a former FBI agent, writes in his recent book `Messing with the Enemy,' that `Russia absolutely influenced the U.S. Presidential election,' especially in Michigan and Wisconsin, where Trump's winning margin was less than 1 percent in each State. ``We still don't know the full extent of the Russian interference, but we know its propaganda reached 126 million people via Facebook alone. A BuzzFeed analysis found that fake news stories on Facebook generated more social engagement in the last 3 months of the campaign than did legitimate articles: The `20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook.' Almost all of this `fake news' was either started or spread by Russian bots, including claims that the Pope had endorsed Trump and that Hillary Clinton had sold weapons to the Islamic State. ``Elsewhere on social media, tens of thousands of Russian bots spread pro-Trump messages on Twitter, which has already notified 1.4 million users that they interacted with Russian accounts. The Russian disinformation, propagating hashtags such as #Hillary4Prison and #MAGA, reflected what the Trump campaign was saying. The Russian bots even claimed after every Presidential debate that Trump had won; whereas, objective viewers gave each one to Clinton. ``Russia also hacked voting systems in at least 39 States; and while there is no evidence that vote tallies were changed, Russians may have used that stolen data to target their social media or shared the results with the Trump campaign. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that `in a small number of States,' the Russians may have been able to `alter or delete voter registration data,' potentially disenfranchising Clinton voters. ``And then there was the crucial impact of the Russian hacks of Democratic documents disseminated primarily by WikiLeaks. The first tranche of stolen documents, more than 19,000 emails and 8,000 attachments, was strategically released on July 22, 2016, 3 days before the Democratic Convention. The resulting news coverage disrupted the Clinton campaign's plans by creating the impression that the Democratic National Committee was biased against Bernie Sanders and forcing DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign. ``The second tranche of stolen documents was released on October 7, just 29 minutes after The Post reported on the `Access Hollywood' videotape in which Trump is heard boasting about grabbing women by the genitals. These emails, stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, distracted voter attention by revealing the transcripts of lucrative speeches Clinton had given to Goldman Sachs, a populist boogeyman. ``A third release of stolen emails, on October 11, revealed that Democratic operative Donna Brazile, while working at CNN, had provided debate questions to Clinton during the primaries and that senior Democratic operatives, who were themselves Catholics, had exchanged emails disparaging Republicans who cherry-picked their faith for political gain. This fueled Trump's narrative that the election was `rigged' and that the `Clinton team' was, as he said, `viciously attacking Catholics and Evangelicals.' The latter charge, unfair as it was, proved especially important in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, swing States with lots of Catholic voters. ``Little wonder that Trump said `I love WikiLeaks' and mentioned its revelations 164 times in the last month of the campaign. `This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable,' Trump said on October 12. Eight days later, he marveled, `Boy, that WikiLeaks has done a job on her, hasn't it?' ``Now, by contrast, Trump and his apologists pretend Russian intervention, including WikiLeaks, was no big deal. That beggars belief.'' The end of this is--and I am sorry I have to skip over some of it-- is: ``That is the inconvenient truth that Putin Republicans won't admit.''

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an op-ed from former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who worked for Richard Nixon and George Bush: President Trump's disgraceful performance in Helsinki, Finland, and, in the days since, is an indication that he is not fit to remain in office. Trump's 2016 ``America First'' platform might be more aptly named ``Russia First'' after the disaster that occurred last week. Trump's turn toward Russia is indefensible. I am a lifelong Republican. I have campaigned and won as a member of the party, and I have served more than one Republican President. My Republican colleagues--once rightfully critical of President Obama's engagement strategy with Russia leader Vladimir Putin--have to end their willful ignorance of the damage Trump is doing, both domestically and internationally. We must put aside the GOP label, as hard as that may be, and demonstrate the leadership our country needs by calling on the President to step down. Trump's sycophantic relationship with Putin is unsurprising given his previous comments about Russia and its dictator. What is shocking is how long he has possessed, and disregarded, hard evidence of Putin's direct role in undermining our elections. According to New York Times reporting, he saw dispositive emails and texts early in January 2017. Trump's repeated public dismissals of the intelligence coming from his own deputies is deeply disturbing. Along with his walk back of statements last week, and then walking back the walk backs, it's impossible to keep up, and his behavior warrants a fresh evaluation of whether the President can be trusted with the future of the United States. His apologists will argue that the current outcry is just another attempt by moderates and ``establishment'' Republicans to discredit the President. But what does this man have to say or do for his supporters to finally see that his actions are detrimental to the country? We must put aside the GOP label, as hard as that may be, and demonstrate the leadership our country needs. Trump's avowed respect for the word of a dictator who has spent decades undermining the U.S. and its allies is utterly dangerous. Putin is not our ally. Despite the President's dismal attempt to change the narrative by explaining that he misspoke in Helsinki, the pattern is clear: As a candidate and as President, he has constantly praised Putin just as he has constantly undercut the core of our democracy: the courts, the media, and the FBI. He has a history of discrediting members of his own Cabinet and the agencies they lead. These are not the actions of someone who should be navigating delicate diplomatic discussions and setting foreign policy. If the President did genuinely misspeak on Monday, it demonstrates his inability to articulate accurately U.S. foreign policy at the highest level, for the highest stakes. As the leader of the free world--as ridiculous as that title sounds when applied to Trump--his words matter. If he cannot take his place at a podium next to an adversarial foreign leader and stand up for America's interests and principles, he should not be President. Trump has alienated our true allies in Europe and undermined the United States' reputation as a consistent, reliable moral force for good in the world. He disdains democracies and admires dictatorships. What appears to matter to him is not what leaders represent but how they flatter him. North Korea's Kim Jong Un and Putin have cracked that code and fan Trump's ego in a way that respected heads of state do not. Yet many Republicans continue to defend him. In this election year, opposing Trump is risky for GOP candidates. Invoking the need to choose country over party is an overused trope. But it is essential now. The Republican majority in Congress can fully implement promised sanctions against Russia to show its opposition to Russia's meddling in our election. Putin needs economic growth in Russia because it benefits the oligarchy. Tougher, tangible sanctions would weaken him and hurt those who benefit from his power. House Speaker Paul Ryan indicated earlier this week that additional sanctions were on the table. This would be a start. Congress can also ensure that the Robert S. Mueller, III, investigation is not compromised. Any interference in it after this week should raise many red flags. The special counsel and his team, who, despite the President's attacks, show every sign of unbiased professionalism, need to finish their work without tampering. Finally, even if the Russian efforts to undermine State voting systems were unsuccessful in 2016, this is a vulnerability that may be exploited in the future. With the help of Congress, States must strengthen their processes and security to stop future meddling from Russia or other foreign actors. Republican voters, including those who supported Donald Trump, have the obligation to demand action from their elected officials. Vocal opposition is expected from Democrats, but it is Republicans' disapproval that will have the most sway on Capitol Hill and at the White House. Those Members of the party in Congress who have stood up to the President should be commended. More must follow, with more than private talk and tepid tweets. Only bold leadership can put the United States back on a path that values freedom and democracy, and truly puts America first.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call this body to action. Two days ago, we watched, the world watched in horror in Finland as our President took Putin's side instead of our intelligence community's side. Our intelligence community told us, told him that Russia attacked our democracy and attacked our elections. For whatever reason, President Trump seems unable to clearly state that he agrees with intelligence. Just yesterday, when he said he misspoke, he then shifted and went back to it could be others. Why? We have to ask ourselves why. The Republican majority has been determined to do absolutely nothing in response when it is clear that there is much that we can and must do. Why? They have declined to pass additional legislation to serve as a deterrent to Russia and that would sanction Russia if they attacked our elections again. Why? Especially when we have been warned that Russia intends to interfere with our elections in just a few months. They have this whole Congress, but still Republicans have not passed any legislation to strengthen our election security system to mitigate this threat. Instead, congressional Republicans are trying to cut--this is unbelievable--trying to cut election security grants by hundreds of millions of dollars. Why? Don't they at least want to protect us going into the future? They have blocked votes to force the President to release his tax returns so we can know whether his business deals are affecting his decisions in the office of the Presidency. Why? And, most importantly, they have consistently refused to vote to protect Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Why? Speaker Ryan controls the floor. Republicans are the ones who put all of the legislation on the floor. They could do this now, but they refuse to, even though they have the power. Why won't they? Why won't they let us investigate? Why won't they let us have a vote? America and the world is watching. They are wondering how long it will take for this Republican Congress to act. When will it be too much? We have heard some Republican heroes like John McCain and others who have said this was the most horrific performance and that we must--must talk about this, and yet we don't. Why?

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share an editorial from the Union Leader, New Hampshire's statewide newspaper. People who thought a weak and dying Roosevelt gave away too much to the Russians at Yalta in World War II may want to reconsider. Compared to the pathetic, boot-licking performance of President Trump in Helsinki this week, FDR had his A-game going against Joseph Stalin. Republicans who are now, finally, trying to distance themselves from Trump have no one to blame but themselves. They kept silent as Trump has disgraced and demeaned the office, damaged our relations with loyal allies, and repeatedly attempted to destroy a free press. But when an American President openly sides with a Russian KGB thug against our own country, these politicians sense that the `optics' don't look so good and might threaten their power and perks in midterm elections. Trump, of course, is now trying to walk things back, but even his hard-core supporters must wince at how he tries to worm his way out of his nauseating Helsinki brownnosing of the dictator Putin. But the Republican Party isn't Trump's hardcore faithful; and if the party doesn't clearly denounce this shameful and disgraceful performance, it is going to find itself with no credibility and no hope for years to come. That is the end of the editorial.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for holding this Special Order. This is so important to speak to the Nation tonight, and we must keep raising our voices until the President backs off and fixes this. I am a Democrat, but I grew up in a conservative Republican family. What we all had in common was the idea that children were sacred--to be loved, to be cared for--and that families were the most important. I grew up in a large, large family with many, many kids and many adults around all the time. There wasn't any problem because we understood that the children were what brought us together. So here we are now. I am in Congress. I have been here for 8 years. Never, ever, did I think that I would have to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and ask the President of the United States to stop locking babies up, to stop putting babies in jail. This plan, his executive order, is not going to solve this problem. How big is this problem? In addition to the more than 2,000 children and their parents--and we don't even know if the parents will ever be able to be reunited with their children because their parents have been deported--many of them--and separated, and they don't even know where their children are, which is just heartbreaking. I think we all saw those images the other night of little girls being brought under the cover of darkness, after midnight, in New York. Who is doing that to these little children who have done no harm to them? These children are refugees. They are not trying to break any laws. They are refugees. They were fleeing from danger. Their parents carried them in their arms many, many miles through really treacherous terrain and conditions, to save them, just as so many of our forefathers and -mothers did to save their children. So it is hard for me to believe that we have to stand here and ask the President of the United States not to lock up these people. Now, there is a process, and everybody knows we need to have a process and a procedure at the border. But this is just cruel, inhumane, humiliating, and, frankly, has really hurt our image around the world. Everybody--everybody--in this time and age is now seeing these pictures of these little children and seeing their parents--they are refugees--who are being turned away and wondering: Whatever happened to the shining city on the hill? Shining city. Whatever happened to us that we would do something like this? And why are we doing this? I am getting so many phone calls in my office, and I know that everybody else is also. They are not coming from just Democrats or Republicans. They are coming from people who have children, people who love children, grandparents. They call up, they cry, and they say: Do something. Make this stop now. I can't stand to see the pictures anymore. What is happening down there? Well, what is happening here is that we have a President who has locked up children. We just need to say it. When that first happened, they said they weren't separating the children. Then they said, well, they are separating the children, but they are not in cages. Then we saw the pictures that they actually are in cages. Then all of our hearts broke. This can't stay. This is a huge stain on this beautiful country that has been known as a place of refuge. We have been the place dreamt of by the world. Whe things have been terrible in their own corner of the world, when they have suffered from violence and they have suffered from war and all kinds of problems, they dreamt of coming to America. And Americans welcomed them. Something has changed. But not the American soul. It is not the American heart. It is not the American people. What has changed is the administration. We have a President who is indifferent to this; and he has surrounded himself with people who are, in the kindest words to say, indifferent to this. We have to ask ourselves: Why are they doing this? Against all of our moral values, against the outcry, against many people in their own party who are saying: This is just wrong. This can't be right. We have to stop. Why does the President continue to do this? Now they are talking about putting these children and their families on military bases. Again, you have to think: What are we planning on doing? Why are we not using the same tools that we have been using that were effective? Why do we have to imprison these little ones and their parents? And the conditions. They can say all they want about the conditions; but we know that if you are in a tent in Texas in this season, you are broiling hot. We also know that the conditions, where so many people are packed in together, make it difficult to keep people healthy. So these little children are not only coming exhausted from their journey, but they are arriving and then are having to deal with all of the other problems that they are seeing. The damage that we are doing to these children will not go away, ever. We have traumatized them. I am a social worker. I have worked with vulnerable children and their families, and I know that the scars that they are going to carry will impact them forever. It is not just impacting them. The pictures that have come out from these places are absolutely locked in people's minds. When we have some countries that are not friendly to America scolding us, something is really wrong. We have to insist that the President and his administration remember that this is not about the President and his administration; this is about our country. Not just his country. It is our country. This is about our history of being the place of refuge and about caring about people, welcoming them, and knowing that the refugees who have come to our country--we like to brag about some of the people who have arrived and brought incredible talents and advances in business and technology and science. We always say that is because we were the melting pot. We brought people in, and then they used their talents and helped grow our economy and grow our country. That was something that we bragged about. We still say: Let's go have Mexican food. Let's go have Italian food. We have embraced so much of this. It has just become a regular thing because we have been a melting pot. But we are not using that word anymore. Apparently, we don't feel that children who are born under very difficult circumstances have a right to seek refuge. We put those babies in jail. Let that sit on our conscience for a little bit. More importantly, let that sit on the conscience of the President of the United States. It isn't right. We know how wrong this is. When we see other countries talking about us and about our violations of human rights, we really have lost it. I beg the President tonight, I beg his administration, to open their hearts, to look at these children, and to recognize that, when their families came over, most of those families did not come over well educated and with a lot of money in their pockets. Their forefathers and -mothers, as did mine, came in search of a better life. They were desperate, they were penniless, and they took a chance. No, they didn't follow what we call proper channels because they weren't there. The channels were, if you could get enough money to get in a boat or you could get enough money to walk, you came. Then you enriched this country with your presence, with your hard work, with your embracing of American values. Those American values are still there. The President needs to look around and recognize the damage that he is doing to our image, the damage that he is doing to those little ones, the damage that he is doing to their families, and the damage he is doing to us right now. He needs to stop, pause, and change direction.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, America is looking on, indeed the world is looking on with horror as they see pictures of children in cages. First it was denied. They were saying, No, we weren't separating families. Then they said, Well, we are not putting them in cages. And now America and the world sees the truth. And it is up to the President. He could change this tonight if he wanted to. I think we have to ask ourselves: Why won't he? Why won't this Congress do something? The world is watching. We are losing our moral authority as we speak. I beg the President and the Speaker of the House and others in this Congress to stop this now.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to use its existing authority to dredge Hampton Harbor in southern New Hampshire. Hampton Harbor is New Hampshire's largest commercial fishing port, and it is a lifeline to the ocean for New Hampshire fishermen. Severe shoaling has made the water so shallow that it will soon become unnavigable. Some vessels must wait for the tides to be at their highest simply to enter the harbor. Over 1,500 recreational vessels, emergency response and patrol boats, and numerous commercial lobster and fishing boats could be cut off from the ocean. The narrowing and shallowing of the harbor not only places unnecessary costs on local businesses, it is also a safety hazard. As access points to the harbor become tighter and the window for entering the harbor safely narrows, more boats must enter and exit the harbor at the same time. This greatly increases the risk of a collision. A Hampton fisherman has warned in a letter to his local paper that: ``Only a matter of time before there is a boat-to-boat or boat-to-wall collision, which will result in major property damage and possible human injury or death.'' This project must move forward as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply directs the Army Corps of Engineers to expedite its existing Portsmouth Harbor Navigation Improvement Project. Portsmouth Harbor is vital to both New Hampshire's economy and our national security. It is the only deep draft harbor located in the State of New Hampshire and is the port of entry for fuels that generate 20 percent of New Hampshire's energy. The harbor is also home to the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, where Granite Staters work on our Nation's advanced nuclear submarines. It is a challenging harbor to navigate--home to some of the fastest tidal currents on Earth. That is why it is so important that the Portsmouth Harbor project moves forward quickly. The harbor must remain safe and navigable. The skilled sailors of the United States Navy can navigate this difficult waterway. It is vital that commercial traffic can also use the harbor safely and that commercial vessels do not delay the submarines' entry to the shipyard. In addition, a maritime incident triggered by this difficult waterway could cause a devastating oil spill that would negatively impact the shipyard. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Congressman Tonko, for yielding. I know how close you were to Louise and how much she loved you and you loved her. I offer my condolences not only to Louise's family, but also to Paul and to the entire Chamber, and to me, because I loved Louise, also. You hear people using the word ``love'' here. It was very genuine. When I arrived in January of 2007, I saw the fire in Louise and I saw the honey in Louise. She was a mixture of both. That is what made her so absolutely delightful. I saw her as the new chairman of the Rules Committee take on our friends across the aisle about so many issues here, and she had that fire in her. But then I saw her with the honey and the sweetness, and that is why people use the word ``love'' when they talk about Louise. So I want to tell just a very short story about my first real close encounter with Louise Slaughter. I had a dear friend in New Hampshire who very much admired Louise and wanted to meet her. I said: She is busy. She has just taken over this new position. And I am new, but okay, I will ask her. So we were walking there, and I called Louise over, and I said: Louise, I would like to introduce you to somebody who just has always admired you. Louise said: Honey, have her come into my office. So we did. And Louise sat down on the couch like she didn't have a thing to do that day except to entertain us with tea and small talk and just her warmth and her vibrancy. My friend never forgot that. I never forgot that either. That was Louise, absolutely full of love and, as I said, full of honey and also full of fire. We miss her very much here. We always will. Condolences to her staff, who loved her as well, and I know that she loved them. And to the people of western New York, thank you for sharing her with us for so long.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from outside these doors where there are thousands of young people who are calling for action on gun safety. I marched out with my Democratic colleagues, and I really wish that my Republican friends across the aisle had joined us in this, but I will describe what I saw. I saw a lot of very, very upset young people who are begging this House and the Senate to make change to protect them. They no longer want to live under this threat. There was one sign in particular that caught my eye. A young girl was standing there with a sign, quietly, and it said, ``Am I next?'' So, Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves that question: Are we next? They don't want another moment of silence. They want action. They want it now. I congratulate them for their efforts. When 18-year-olds are leading the country with moral courage, I think it is time for us to respond in kind.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, children and families across the country rely on their leaders in Congress for much more than thoughts and prayers. They need us to take action to keep them safe. Gun violence in this country is a horrifying epidemic. There have been 18 school shootings in the past 7\1/2\ weeks. It is even hard to talk about this. It is difficult to argue, though, with people who are looking at Congress and wondering whether too many Members in Congress are too close to the NRA and the gun manufacturers. Congress actually passed a law to prevent the CDC from even studying gun violence. In difficult times, I, too, seek thoughts and prayers from friends, clergy, and family, but this is not stopping the slaughter. I agree with police officers across the country who say: Get the AR-15s out of the hands of dangerous people now. Our children are being massacred in their schools. Madam Speaker, Speaker Ryan must put bills on the floor to address gun violence or his party will go down in history as the party that blocked solutions to this crisis.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chair, I represent the First District of New Hampshire, which includes Pease Air Guard Base, formerly Pease Air Force Base. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I'm aware that our military's historic use of perfluorinated chemicals or PFCs has not only polluted the groundwater of Pease and the surrounding area, but also of bases and their environs nationwide. That's why I'm offering this amendment to authorize the Department of Defense to fund a nationwide health impact study--which the House-passed NDAA has just authorized--to be conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry beginning in FY2018. Our service members, veterans, and other affected constituents deserve answers about how they and their children have been harmed by these chemicals, which are classified as emerging contaminants. This contamination began in the 1970s, when more than 600 U.S. military fire-training sites used a firefighting foam that contained PFCs called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). Testing conducted by the Department of Defense at many of these sites has found PFC groundwater levels that exceed EPA guidelines many times over. At Pease, it is 12.5 times higher than the health advisory. The Department of Defense has so far spent $200 million assessing and remediating the water at many of these sites. The House report accompanying the NDAA has extensive language identifying this problem and directing the Defense Department to report to the Committee on the process and timeline for identifying and resourcing long-term remediation on military bases or in the surrounding communities. Because of widespread PFC use at sites across the United States, contaminated drinking water now poses a nationwide public health threat. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), PFOA is especially problematic ``because it can stay in the environment and in the human body for long periods.'' Many peer-reviewed studies indicate health dangers of PFCs, including links to testicular, kidney, and thyroid cancer, liver damage, impaired immune system function, decreased fertility, and harm to a developing fetus or child. But the ACS says ``more research is needed to clarify these findings,'' because a comprehensive, long-term study of the health impacts of PFOA and PFOS has not yet been conducted. That is why I see a clear and pressing need for this study. Our service men and women, veterans, and others who have been exposed to PFCs deserve answers on both the short-and long-term health impacts of these contaminants. Such a study's findings could enable them to take proactive measures, such as more frequent cancer screenings, to protect their own and their children's health. Knowing that groundwater contamination exists and understanding the clear danger of long-term health risks, we can begin to remedy past mistakes by supporting the launch of this much-needed study on behalf of our troops, our veterans, their families, and affected civilians. This is a debt we owe our troops and military families, defense civilian workers, and others who served on or lived near these bases. Please support our amendment to give our military members and veterans, their families and children, in and around bases across our country, the answers they deserve.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It would change the way our official taxpayer-funded mass mailings to constituents look by limiting the mailer to the size of a standard postcard. As Members of Congress, it is our job to set the standard for responsible stewardship of taxpayer funds, and public resources should not be spent on excessive campaign-style mailers. A significant part of our duties as elected representatives is to keep our constituents informed about what we are doing in our offices. I support mass mailings to our constituents, but we can keep them informed by sending a simple postcard, without all of the glitz and gloss. Also, when official mail looks like campaign mailers, people are more likely to toss it out, thereby defeating the very purpose of informing our constituents. Our official mail should not look like campaign ads or junk mail. Our constituents don't want large mailers. They just want information. This amendment delivers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, while I certainly appreciate my colleagues' opinions on this and I recognize that it is not a perfect solution, I don't think that this is a surprise. We certainly have heard from our constituents, pretty much every election cycle, when they start talking about all the mass mailings they are receiving, with many pictures and lots of ideas about what has been accomplished by the incumbent in office. It has been around for a while. Like I said, I do appreciate it, but they are still able to mail directly to a response from their colleagues or from any of their constituents. The reality is that most people are not looking at just a postcard in this world. They do look online. I understand what you are talking about. I have rural areas as well. They look online. Also, they can receive a number of other correspondence from us. It does not in any way impact the correspondence when they write to us. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, last week, I was unable to vote on Roll Call numbers 347, 348, 349, and 353, as I was with my family upon the birth of my grandchild. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call numbers 347, 348, and 353, and YEA on Roll Call Number 349.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, due to a very long flight delay, I regret that I was unable to make votes on June 20, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 309 and Roll Call No. 310.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, all teachers are special, but educators who stay way beyond normal retirement dates deserve extra credit. In my district, I have four educators from the same high school, Inter-Lakes High School in Meredith, NH, who are retiring after a combined 150 years in education. That is truly remarkable, and I join with their community to thank them for their service to the children and the community. Vice Principal William Athans has been working in education for 51 years, which is simply incredible. Guidance counselor Christina Gribben has been assisting students and helping them reach their full potential for 43 years. World languages teacher Nancy Stetson has been teaching for 35 years, and science teacher Joyce Warburton has been expanding minds and preparing students for 21 years. These educators have played a tremendous role in the lives of so many New Hampshire students. They have planted knowledge and wisdom in young minds and prepared their students for success. I hope our newly minted retirees enjoy a long and happy retirement. They certainly have earned it.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Cancer Society, which states cancer patients and survivors need affordable, accessible insurance coverage with no preexisting condition exclusions or annual and lifetime caps and that high-risk pools have failed to meet these basic needs. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Washington, DC, May 3, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) is deeply concerned about the reports of additional amendments to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), including one that would allegedly add $8 billion in new spending for state high-risk pools. This amendment is particularly egregious because it would further incent states to apply for waivers from current-law market rules that protect patients with pre- existing conditions. Historically, state high-risk pools have fallen short of providing coverage of prevention, treatment and follow-up care for cancer patients and survivors. Segmenting people with cancer and other serious illnesses away from the private marketplace and into high-risk pools absent an adequate and permanent source of public funding has never been an adequate solution. Between 1976 and 2010, 35 states created high-risk pools to cover individuals who could not otherwise purchase insurance in the private market, usually because of a pre-existing condition. Every one of those risk pools experienced net operating losses year after year. Furthermore, high-risk pools did not result in lower premiums. All of them set premiums above the non-group market average or standard rate in the state, usually by 150-200 percent. Only a few states provided additional premium assistance for low-income individuals, leaving many who could not afford premiums priced out of the program. Most states also imposed waiting periods before covering pre-existing conditions. An individual with a prior cancer diagnosis often had to wait 6- 12 months before the high-risk pool would cover the costs associated with cancer treatment or follow-up survivorship care. Most states imposed limitations on coverage with either lifetime or annual limits. And most plans offered deductibles of $1,000 or higher. Neither AHCA, nor the new amendment would fully protect patients from any of those conditions. Cancer patients and survivors need insurance coverage that is affordable, readily accessible, and protects them from pre-existing condition exclusions, annual and lifetime caps on coverage and extraordinary out-of-pocket costs. Past experience has shown that high-risk pools failed to meet these basic needs, yet still were a drain on state budgets. As we have indicated in our earlier letters, there are reasonable fixes that could be made to the current law. We stand ready to work with you to develop policies that improve the law and encourage a robust health insurance market that provides affordable and comprehensive coverage options. Sincerely, Christopher W. Hansen, President.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this cruel bill on behalf of my constituents, especially those it would hurt the most: people with preexisting conditions, older Americans, veterans, and lower income people. If this bill passes, we will go back to the days when people with preexisting conditions could be denied coverage or charged more, when insurers could decide whether or not to cover basic care like hospitalization, and when sick babies might hit their insurer's lifetime coverage limit before they could even walk. Under this bill, older Americans will pay more. In fact, Americans aged 50 to 64 would pay premiums five times higher than others. Veterans will lose access to tax credits that make private coverage affordable, and lower income people will be hurt. Taking away Medicaid expansion would put affordable coverage out of reach for millions and set us back in the fight against the heroin, fentanyl, and opioid crisis. Instead of this cruel bill, let's come together to improve health care, not take health insurance away from millions just to give tax credits to the wealthiest. We are better than that.