Niki Tsongas

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, first, that energy infrastructure is critical to our economy; yet we cannot simply give the fossil fuel industry carte blanche to build pipelines without robust public reviews. I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

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

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. TSONGAS

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

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment protects a robust public review process for any proposed pipeline that seeks to cross protected conservation and recreation lands, this time for pipelines that includes a crossing with Canada or Mexico. The legislation before us today, with its narrowly defined environmental reviews and limited public input, puts treasured public resources at risk. My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country, faces real energy challenges. We need careful and strategic long-term planning in order to lower energy prices and increase reliability and resiliency. However, as with H.R. 2910 that we considered earlier this afternoon, H.R. 2883 moves us in the wrong direction. In fact, it doesn't allow any careful or strategic planning when it comes to fossil fuel pipelines. Cross-border and natural gas pipeline interests should not be permitted to cavalierly tread on public lands, lands expressly set aside by Federal taxpayers, State and local communities for the benefit of conservation and public recreation. Our Nation has a longstanding history of preserving natural habitats and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested significant public resources toward these goals. These lands and the decisions behind them deserve to be honored. The potential negative environmental impacts of an oil or natural gas pipeline are too great to risk such treasured investments by Federal taxpayers and State and local communities, and we should not quickly forego the essential public review process that has helped ensure these public treasures are available to future generations. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I don't have any additional speakers. I would just like to say that energy infrastructure is critical to our economy, yet we cannot simply give the fossil fuel industry a carte blanche to build pipelines that adversely impact conservation and recreation lands. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, two weeks ago, the Armed Services Committee advanced the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 to the House floor with broad bipartisan support. I would like to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for their work in developing this year's bill. I would also like to thank Congressman Turner, chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member, for his leadership and spirit of bipartisanship this year. This year's bill includes investments to fill genuine readiness needs and funding that is critical to ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the best cutting-edge resources and best equipment possible to keep them safe when defending our Nation. I was encouraged that the bill we have passed out of committee directs the Defense Department to provide specific updates and reports on a number of programs and platforms so that we can robustly conduct our oversight responsibility on behalf of the American people. However, as we consider the bill on the floor today and in the coming days, I remain concerned about how we fund these needs. Substantial budget increases for the Department of Defense at the expense of other vital national programs undermines investments in our national competitiveness and the future of our country and, I believe, makes us less secure over the long term. Providing our men and women in uniform with the resources they need to carry out their mission is one of our most solemn obligations, but we must also fund these resources responsibly in order to safeguard our economic vitality and our national security.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, when President Trump withdrew from the Paris climate accord last week, I was in Germany meeting with some of that country's top officials, legislators, and business leaders. In our conversations, many of my German counterparts rightly emphasized that climate change is a major world threat, with potential to cause widespread and long-lasting damage if not acted upon. So the news of President Trump's unilateral decision drew sharp criticism and deep concern. Our longtime allies viewed withdrawal as America ceding international leadership and turning its back on the world. Indeed, withdrawing from the Paris climate accord reduces our ability to help shape a solution to the climate change crisis and retreats from our responsibility to serve as a global leader. It also ignores the role we, here in the United States, play in contributing to climate change. I stand in strong support of American businesses and State and local leaders across our country who see beyond the shortsighted approach of this decision and will remain committed to furthering the goals of the Paris accord.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, many of us heard of the Marines United Facebook page for the first time. On this page, women marines found that their intimate photos were posted without their knowledge and without their consent. Some had no idea these photos had ever been taken. Beneath the photos, marine members of the Facebook group wrote obscene and abusive comments about their comrades. This betrayal of marines by marines disgracefully disrespects fellow members, sows the seeds of distrust, and undermines the unit cohesion so essential to military readiness, putting our national security at risk. Today we bring a bill to the floor to make sure military members who have broadcasted or distributed certain private images are held accountable. H.R. 2052 creates a separate article under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that specifically criminalizes the wrongful sharing of intimate photos without explicit consent to do so. H.R. 2052 sends a clear message to all servicemembers and to our military leadership that this kind of abusive behavior will not and must not be tolerated. Members from both sides of the aisle have come together, and I thank Representatives McSally and Speier for their leadership in support of this commonsense legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, Police Chief William Taylor of my hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts, said: ``Each day two to three people overdose from opioids in Lowell. . . . The introduction of illicit fentanyl has been the game changer. . . . `' In 2015, Massachusetts ranked second nationally per capita in deaths from synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which can be up to 50 times stronger than heroin. But Massachusetts is far from alone. Between 2014 and 2015, nationwide deaths involving synthetic opioids tragically rose 72 percent. That is why I partnered with Representative Brian Fitzpatrick to introduce the INTERDICT Act, which would provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection with enhanced chemical screening devices and scientific support to detect and intercept synthetic opioids like fentanyl. I thank Representative Fitzpatrick and our Senate counterparts for their partnership, and I urge all our colleagues to support the INTERDICT Act. To effectively combat the nationwide opioid crisis requires a comprehensive, cooperative, fully funded effort. The INTERDICT Act would be a powerful tool in eliminating synthetic opioids from the equation.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, since President Trump took office, I have heard from hundreds of my constituents who are concerned about attacks by this new administration on the Environmental Protection Agency and the potential, long-term negative impacts on public health, clean water, clean air, and our Nation's work to play a leading role in combating climate change. Thelma from Lowell wrote: Without EPA and its mission to protect our water and air, I fear that all the work done over the past 40 years will be erased. Ingrid from Groton wrote: I need to be able to trust that the EPA will protect our air, water, land, and health. But Scott Pruitt has worked so closely with polluters, even suing the EPA more than a dozen times, how can we trust that he will protect our health and safety? And demonstrating just how personal an issue this is for many people, Katherine from Acton wrote to me: This is my first time writing a congressional Representative, and I am proud to be doing so now, though my motivation is less heartening. As a mother of two precocious young kids, I have little time to do much beyond the essentials of daily living, much less writing a letter, so I assure you this one is written out of a feeling of necessity. She went on to say: Environmental pollution is real and in our backyards. It contaminates our air, our water, and our land. Cleanup of these pollutants is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and the implications for our health are astounding. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today will do nothing to assuage the fears of my constituents and millions of others around the country who support independent, unbiased, science-based decisionmaking at the EPA, which is essential to protecting public health, clean water, and combating climate change. Instead of promoting sound science, this legislation would weaken the scientific expertise of the EPA's Science Advisory Board, the independent body that reviews scientific and technical information used in EPA decisionmaking and provides scientific advice to the EPA Administrator. If Congress really wants to promote sound science, I would urge consideration of the Scientific Integrity Act, legislation that I introduced along with Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and Representatives Lowenthal and Tonko. Our bill will protect scientific research at Federal agencies from political interference and special interests. This legislation currently has 93 cosponsors, and it deserves debate in this House. The majority is trying to claim that the legislation before us today helps us achieve goals similar to those of the Scientific Integrity Act, but my constituents aren't fooled. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1431.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, for the third week in a row, Republicans are back on the floor of the House of Representatives seeking to overturn environmental protections for our Nation's deeply valued public lands, this time attacking wildlife protections for iconic species living in national wildlife refuges in Alaska. This is not a new issue for me or my constituents. My late husband, Senator Paul Tsongas, helped write the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. He worked on a bipartisan basis with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska to craft legislation that balanced conservation with responsible economic development for Alaskans, including oil exploration, mining, timber harvesting, and sport hunting. But he also stated on the Senate floor, back in 1980: ``Nature made the wilderness and wildlife in Alaska majestic during hundreds of thousands of years. Man''--and, I would add, woman--``is challenged merely to respect and preserve that natural majesty.'' He also spoke on the Senate floor about conversations at the dinner table with our then 6-year-old daughter, who asked what her father was doing to protect endangered species. Well, our daughter has grown now, but here we are 37 years later in Congress debating if that bipartisan law crafted with my late husband allows hunters to shoot bear cubs and wolf pups in their den on a national wildlife refuge. My colleagues are correct that ANILCA, as that law is known, and other Federal laws give the State of Alaska unique privileges and responsibilities to oversee wildlife management on public lands; however, this is not a carte blanche. There has never been a right to set policies on national wildlife refuges that are inconsistent with bedrock environmental laws or ANILCA's mandate to conserve species and habitats in their natural diversity on wildlife refuges. I fully support the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to no longer turn a blind eye to harmful practices that are detrimental to nationally significant species and are not rooted in science-based wildlife management practices. If my colleagues so desperately want to authorize a right to shoot bears from a helicopter in a wildlife refuge, I would be happy to recommend some video games. I hear virtual reality headsets these days make it just like the real thing. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Republican majority pushed through legislation attacking clean air, clean water, and blocking public transparency into payments made to foreign governments by oil and mining companies. Today we are considering legislation that will roll back opportunities for the American people to have a say in how our Nation's public lands are managed. The idea that there should be national public lands that belong to and are managed on behalf of the American people is a value that dates back to the founding of our country and is embedded in our Constitution. Generation after generation of Americans has endorsed the idea that our public lands should be managed to balance many competing uses: recreation, responsible economic development, sustainable resource extraction, renewable energy, military purposes, and conservation of historic American landscapes, just to name a few. We all want to see this important aspect of our national heritage managed in an effective and efficient manner, balancing conservation for future generations with sustainable productivity for local communities. The Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0, as it is known, will help us better achieve this balance on the approximately 245 million acres of land managed by the BLM. As American citizens, we all have a right to provide input on how we would like to see these public lands managed; but the current process for doing so is slow, lacks transparency, and fails to incorporate over 30 years of updated science and understanding of our changing climate. In fact, this process hasn't been substantially updated since the Reagan administration. States, local governments, and other stakeholders all agreed that the process was in need of updates. BLM agreed with this consensus and began a 2-year review, receiving over 3,000 public comments on what changes needed to be made. Two years, 3,000 public comments, this was no midnight regulation. Their final product, which the resolution before us today would permanently overturn, increases transparency, enhances the role of science and decisionmaking, and strengthens the role of the public's voice earlier in this planning process. Planning 2.0 also upholds the Federal Land Policy and Management Act's commitment to States, local government, and tribes in land management decisions. The Bureau of Land Management made several changes in between the draft rule and the final rule to clarify coordination requirements and promote consistency with local land use plans, all in response to concerns raised through the public input process. According to a BLM fact sheet on the final rule, ``The new rule does not change the special relationship and opportunities provided by statute for cooperating agencies,'' and, ``The final rule establishes several new opportunities for coordination between the BLM and our government partners.'' We should be working together on proposals that strengthen management of our public lands, balance conservation with economic development, and provide sustainable benefits to the people who rely on them for their economic livelihoods. The resolution before us today flies in the face of these goals. I urge my colleagues to reject this Congressional Review Act resolution and vote ``no.''

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution and efforts to roll back important protections for not only our environment, but for American taxpayers. Our Nation's public lands belong to all Americans, and they are managed to balance many competing uses: recreation; responsible economic development; sustainable resource extraction; yes, renewable energy; military purposes; and conservation of historic American landscapes, just to name a few. As such, they should be subject to strong national standards that protect our shared water, shared lands, wildlife, and the multiple uses they support. It is also critical to remember that use of our public lands is a privilege, not a right; and companies seeking to exercise that privilege, whether they be fossil fuel companies or clean energy companies developing wind, solar, and geothermal projects, should be held to a very high standard to preserve and protect resources that belong to all of the American people. We must also make sure that the taxpayers get a fair return for the use and development of our commonly shared resources. The Mineral Leasing Act, as written by Congress, calls upon the Secretary of the Interior to prevent the waste of oil and gas resources on public lands. The Bureau of Land Management's methane waste rule achieves all of these shared goals: the rule prevents the waste of resources that belong to all American people, which, by law, it is required to do; it reduces the amount of greenhouse gas pollution coming off our public lands; and it increases royalty payments to Federal taxpayers and the States. The methane waste rule also supports job creation and American innovation in new technologies. The methane mitigation industry is a growing and emerging field that uses modern technologies to identify and capture wasteful emissions. In fact, a 2014 report commissioned by the Environmental Defense Fund found that methane mitigation companies provide jobs in 46 States and support 102 manufacturing and assembly locations, with 59 percent of all companies across the industry being small businesses. If Republicans had brought this resolution before the House Natural Resources Committee, we could have more thoroughly examined its negative impacts on job creation. Instead, it was rushed to the House floor with only this 1 hour of debate. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

Ms. TSONGAS

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

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, millions of Americans have gained access to valuable healthcare services, and every American has seen their health insurance benefits improve. While there are ways the Affordable Care Act can be improved, we cannot afford to go back to the days when big insurance companies had the power to decide what care Americans could receive, deny coverage to children with diagnosed conditions, cancel coverage when people got sick, and place limits on the amount of care people can receive. Last week, Carol Lodi from Harvard, Massachusetts, in my district, called and told her story. She and her husband gained healthcare coverage under the Affordable Care Act. She is 61. Her husband is 63. They are self-employed. She said: ``If we lose the insurance, we don't know what we'll do.'' Mr. Speaker, please listen to the Lodi family and millions of other families like them. Don't turn your back on them and make America sick again.

Ms. TSONGAS

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

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, following the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the United States and the international community demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces under the threat of military action. After Saddam Hussein defied calls to withdraw from Kuwait, the United States, along with a broad coalition of European, regional, and global allies, began Operation Desert Shield, followed by Operation Desert Storm, a 100-hour land war which expelled the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Approximately 700,000 members of the American Armed Forces served as part of Operation Desert Storm and Operation Desert Shield. Of those, 293 died in theater and 148 were killed in action. The 2015 National Defense Authorization Act authorized the National Desert Storm and Desert Shield War Memorial Association to establish a memorial as a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia. This honors the members of the American Armed Forces who served and those who made the ultimate sacrifice in support of our country. The joint resolution before us today approves the general location of the memorial so that it is in close proximity to the National Mall and other nationally significant war memorials, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. This resolution is an opportunity for the country to come together and thank the servicemembers who fought in the Gulf, those whose lives have been forever changed by their experience in this war, and those who did not return. I support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Throughout this centennial year of the National Park Service, I have been reminded of something that Stephen Mather, that agency's very first Director, once said. Reflecting on the new agency, he remarked: ``The parks do not belong to one State or to one section . . . The Yosemite, the Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon are national properties in which every citizen has a vested interest; they belong as much to the man''--and, I would add, woman--``of Massachusetts, of Michigan, of Florida as they do to the people of California, of Wyoming, and of Arizona.'' Those words are a powerful reminder in this era of political division and disagreement: national parks are national. They cut across party lines and geographic boundaries. They enjoy broad support, and they bring people together--something we seem to need now more than ever. For 100 years, generation after generation of Americans have made the commitment that our most significant historical, cultural, and natural sites should be preserved in perpetuity for future generations. Our national parks have been famously called ``America's best idea'' and have become engrained in our national identity--places like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Ellis Island, and in my own district, Minute Man National Historical Park, which commemorates the shot heard `round the world, and Lowell National Historical Park, which recognizes the people, places, and radical innovation that spawned our Nation's industrial revolution. These parks protect, they celebrate, and give access to the many places that have shaped and defined who we are as a people and a country, and it is important to remember that these places would not have been protected absent support from the Federal Government. Investments in our parks make economic sense. Nationally, the parks generate nearly $30 billion in economic activity and support 250,000 private sector jobs. When people visit our national parks, they also support nearby restaurants, hotels, and local outfitters and guides. According to a recent economic study conducted by the National Park Service, every Federal dollar invested in our parks contributes $10 in economic activity. The legislation before us today includes several helpful provisions as the National Park Service begins its second century. The legislation makes a commitment to the Centennial Challenge, a matching grant program that leverages Federal dollars to encourage private investments to support signature centennial projects that are identified by the National Park Service. It also establishes an endowment at the National Park Foundation to support the missions and goals of the Park Service, makes improvements to the Volunteers-In-Parks program, and helps the National Park Service recruit and hire more young and diverse Americans. This legislation also includes my amendment to ensure that low-income seniors retain access to the Senior Pass, a lifetime pass that provides entrance to all of our Nation's public lands for people age 62 and above. As I am sure my colleagues can attest, seniors in our districts living on a very constrained fixed income may struggle to assemble the $80 to make a one-time payment to purchase a lifetime Senior Pass. This legislation creates a new $20 annual Senior Pass and allows seniors who have purchased four of those passes to trade them in and receive a lifetime Senior Pass. This amendment ensures that we can appropriately balance the need for new revenue for the Centennial Challenge with fundamental fairness for all of our Nation's seniors. I want to thank Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and the National Park Service for working with me on this provision of the bill. Despite these successes, no Member of this body should ignore the stark reality that this legislation is a missed opportunity. On the Natural Resources Committee where I am proud to serve as ranking member of the Federal Lands Subcommittee, there is deep frustration and dissatisfaction with the $12 million deferred maintenance backlog at the National Park Service. Democrats put a centennial bill on the table that starts to address this issue, but it never received serious consideration by our counterparts in the majority. New revenue generated by fees, especially at the expense of our Nation's seniors, will not solve the issue of deferred maintenance. In the short term, the legislation before us today is a good first step, and I support the bill. But Congress must find a way to appropriate new funds to our national parks in order to preserve and protect them for future generations of Americans.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, every November 11th, we stop to recognize the brave men and women who have served our country in our armed forces. Having just marked Veterans Day, I would like to recognize one group of extraordinary servicemembers in particular, the United States Air Forces Escape and Evasion Society, or AFEES. Since the United States military first began using airplanes in foreign wars, members of the United States Air Forces have been forced to eject, crash land, or abandon their aircraft in an occupied country or territory. Once downed, these airmen had to evade capture by enemy forces, oftentimes while suffering from critical injuries. Of the downed aircrew members that were captured, many escaped from the enemy who were holding them in captivity. Many times, downed servicemembers were aided in their escape and evasion by resistance organizations in those occupied countries. Thousands of brave, ordinary people took extraordinary risks at huge costs to both them and their families to help these brave Americans and help them return home. In 1964, the United States Air Forces Escape and Evasion Society was created by the downed aircrew members who evaded capture. Today, AFEES includes downed aircrew members and people who directly aided them in escape and evasion and has more than 600 members, including members from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. I am proud to represent one brave AFEES member, the group's President, John Katsaros of Haverhill, Massachusetts. Today, I would like to recognize the United States Air Forces Escape and Evasion Society and the achievements made by its members: to never accept captivity and to constantly strive for their freedom. Thank you for your service and for the inspiration you are to all of us.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my District Director, June Black, who has been a steadfast member of my district staff for the past nine years. Tomorrow marks June's 20th year in public service, having spent 9 years working in my office, and 11 years working for Marty Meehan, who previously represented this district. In 2007, June was nominated by then-Congressman Marty Meehan for the 2007 Congressman John Joseph Moakley Award for Exemplary Public Service, which she won thanks to her years of dedication and service. The award is presented annually to a staff member from the New England congressional delegation ``who works steadfastly on behalf of local constituents and significant issues and demonstrates the ideals of public service exemplified by Congressman Moakley himself.'' Since she joined my office at the end of 2007, June has served with skill in a variety of roles as a member of my Congressional staff and a dedicated public servant. June joined my staff as regional director and ran my office in Lawrence, Massachusetts, a similar role to the one she held in Rep. Meehan's office. She also served as a guide and mentor to all of the caseworkers and economic development staff in the office. In recognition of her remarkable contributions and the relationships she has developed across the district, June subsequently has taken on the roles of Constituent Services Director and District Director where she has helped to ensure that constituents are well served and that the companies and communities I represent have an accessible federal partner. June has been key to ensuring that accessibility to the people we represent is a hallmark of my office and that we provide prompt, respectful and excellent service to our constituents. During her tenure, she has overseen a casework operation that has responded to thousands of individual concerns and delivered millions of dollars back to my constituents, and she has played a principal role in helping the communities I represent see their economic development vision realized. She is an effective and knowledgeable federal liaison who helps constituents and communities better navigate and access the wide array of services provided by the federal government. June is well-known and very well respected in the communities she represents; a reputation that is well earned after two decades of service to this region. That service and experience brings institutional knowledge, awareness and appreciation of the social and economic challenges facing our constituents. It also gives her a unique understanding of how to navigate federal services and long-standing familiarity of many of the district's economic development projects. She has deep and meaningful relationships with key stakeholders and elected officials throughout Essex County in the Northern part of my district and beyond. As a native of Lawrence, Massachusetts, June's affinity for this region is evident in her commitment to her work and the mutual respect she shares with the constituents and community leaders with whom she interacts. She is someone who has dedicated her career to public service, particularly to having an impact on the city of Lawrence, and helping that city realize its potential. Every day, June demonstrates a sincere commitment to the constituents of this district as well as to innovative methods of serving her community and our country. I am honored to have her on my staff and appreciate the opportunity to recognize a truly remarkable member of my staff, whose individual achievements are so deserving, on this notable milestone.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, last month I sat with parents who lost children to gun violence. There was such sorrow in the room. ``When I lost my son, I lost myself,'' one mother said. Another said: ``Until we get these guns off the streets, the cycle is going to continue.'' As I listened to their stories, I heard again the tragic ways that gun violence so abruptly takes lives and devastates families and communities every single day, and I took to heart their message that too many weapons are too easily available. Preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists, criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill is common sense and essential to our security, and there are bipartisan bills in Congress right now that would do just that. Mr. Speaker, we should not be leaving town with such compelling unfinished business. We should be voting on commonsense, bipartisan legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, since Theodore Roosevelt's designation of our first national monument, Devil's Tower in Wyoming, 16 Presidents from both parties have used the Antiquities Act to protect more than 160 of America's best known and loved landscapes. Only three Presidents have not. Many national monuments created through the Antiquities Act have since become some of our greatest national parks, like Zion, Bryce Canyon, Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Glacier Bay to name a few. All of these parks were first national monuments that Congress decided warranted national park status. The Antiquities Act has also been used on a bipartisan basis to preserve Federal marine areas as marine national monuments, with both President George W. Bush and President Obama using the Antiquities Act to protect some of the most unique and vulnerable areas of the Pacific Ocean. To be clear, the Antiquities Act may only be used on existing Federal lands and waters, areas which belong to all Americans and are typically designated only after an extensive locally driven stakeholder outreach process. Instead of honoring this long bipartisan history of the Antiquities Act that has saved so much for our country, this amendment would foreclose any opportunity for local communities to seek to protect their regions' most valued marine resources located in Federal waters. We have a generational responsibility to ensure that historic and cultural resources and important conservation areas found on our Nation's public lands and waters are available to future generations. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to help protect our Nation's most treasured public resources through the Antiquities Act.