Niki Tsongas

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close and yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to conclude by acknowledging that I sympathize with the property owners along the Red River. Providing them with certainty and assurance that their property rights are not threatened is a goal that we should all share, and we do. Unfortunately, this bill will only complicate an already complicated and messy situation. As introduced, it will likely lead to litigation from tribes and tribal members who stand to lose both property and mineral interests. Furthermore, this bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to disclaim all right, title, and interest in the affected areas and transfer survey authority to the State of Texas. It is unclear how the BLM will be able to work with property owners to clear titles after the United States has already conceded its authority over the land. Additionally, transferring the Federal Government survey authority to Texas is not a workable solution. It is so implausible, in fact, that the bill has triggered a veto threat from the White House. If there is really a problem that Congress can solve, providing Texas landowners with the certainty they desire, we should work together to come up with legislation that would earn the President's signature. We should go back to the drawing board. Until that happens, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call 657, I voted no but I intended to vote yes.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the misguided resolutions before the House that seek to block the Clean Power Plan and undermine United States global leadership on climate change. Climate change is no longer an academic question for scientists to ponder. It is a very real crisis that, if left untouched, will cause irreparable harm to current and future generations. Should the resolutions we are considering today become law, our country would be prevented from taking necessary steps to safeguard our future. The Clean Power Plan calls for a 32 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 and sets individual goals for each State in order to meet this national standard. It is a reasonable, commonsense approach that gives States the flexibility to reduce carbon pollution with strategies that work best in their State while bolstering clean energy investments and economic development. Efforts to block the Clean Power Plan not only ignore overwhelming scientific consensus--we only have to turn on the radio today to hear it time after time, moment after moment--but they ignore the global consensus that we must take action to address climate change. Right now, leaders from over 190 countries are gathered in Paris to outline long-term strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stave off the worst impacts of climate change. While at the summit, President Obama personally met with other heads of state, including the leaders of China and India, to reaffirm their commitment to reducing carbon emissions. America must be at the forefront and lead by example. We must embrace modern policies that cut emissions, increase the use of renewable energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and encourage the development of innovative green technologies. If we are successful, the economic, security, and environmental benefits to our Nation will be widespread, long-lasting, and significant. I urge my colleagues to reject these harmful resolutions. The cost of inaction on the critical generational challenge is simply unacceptable and the price of delay too high.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation and, in particular, a section of the bill that would create an opening to cause irreparable damage to our national parks. H.R. 8 would establish national energy security corridors to short circuit the approval process for natural gas pipelines that cross our Nation's public lands. In doing so, it eliminates longstanding protections afforded to our national parks and other historically significant areas that were set aside for the very distinct purpose of preserving our Nation's cultural and natural heritage. This legislation also blocks the public from providing any input on where these natural gas pipeline corridors should be located. My home State of Massachusetts, like many areas around the country, faces real energy challenges. In my district, a company is proposing to build a new 250-mile natural gas pipeline that crosses three States. I have heard from hundreds of my constituents expressing their concerns with the project, particularly with regard to its route. Thanks to extensive public review and input, the pipeline route has already been adjusted to minimize some of the environmental impacts, but there are still many outstanding concerns that deserve careful scrutiny to be sure that the route does not adversely impact local farmland, State forests, parks, wildlife management areas, and wetlands. The significant amount of interest in this proposed pipeline reflects the Commonwealth's longstanding history of preserving natural habitats and protecting open spaces for the public benefit, and we have invested enormous public resources toward these goals. This is also true of the investments that American taxpayers have made in our national parks. By expediting approval of natural gas pipelines, H.R. 8 would directly erode the National Park Service's ability to meet its core mission of preserving and protecting our Nation's natural, cultural, and historic resources, unimpaired for the use and enjoyment of future generations. I offered an amendment with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) to remove this section from the bill. However, the majority blocked this simple amendment from coming to the floor and receiving an up-or-down vote. Our national parks belong to all Americans and have been famously called ``America's best idea.'' National parks protect, celebrate, and give access to the many places that have shaped and defined who we are as a people and a country. Members should have been given the opportunity to vote on whether or not we should protect our national parks from natural gas pipelines. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, the City of Lowell, Massachusetts is well- known for its historic contributions to this nation, from its roots in the founding of modern industry, to world-renown authors and artists, to public officials who helped shape the national conversation. Lowell recently lost one of those titanic figures with the passing of Richard K. Donahue. Richard Donahue will be remembered across Massachusetts and the country for his expertise and leadership in the legal world, as well as his acumen and achievements in politics, policy and business. A valued citizen of Lowell, his professional career existed on the national stage, through his storied involvement in the successful campaign of President John F. Kennedy, his tenure as a confidant and advisor at the Kennedy White House, as a highly-regarded and nationally respected lawyer, and as President of NIKE, a major worldwide company. He was an exemplary role model for young Lowellians coming of age in the 60s and 70s, setting a standard of excellence and accomplishment that he made seem quite easy. As much as Dick was a national figure, he never lost touch with his home city. He remained deeply committed to Lowell throughout his entire life. Dick represented the fighting spirit and dedication to community that is Lowell's trademark. He always had the community's best interests at heart. His wife, Nancy, the founder of Merrimack Repertory Theater has been its guiding light from its inception. Dick and Nancy's tremendous philanthropic support to the theater and across the region reflected their unflagging generosity and willingness to share the fruits of a very successful life and devote it to the best interests of the City of Lowell. Dick also understood that the City and its University rise and fall together, and devoted himself to being a leader at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, helping to position that institution for future success. Even in recent years, when Dick's health was not good, you'd still see him attend events he thought were important. It reflected his ongoing affection and love for his city and the many good things that happen here. Dick Donahue was a remarkable Lowellian. I know I'm not alone when I say thank you to him for his endless dedication to his country and his city; and to his wife and family for sharing him with us. He will be greatly missed, but his legacy will be felt across this region for generations to come.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, the City of Lowell, Massachusetts has a long and storied tradition of public service, forged by countless dedicated men and women who utilized innovative and open-minded ideas to better the lives of others and further progress in their community. Lowell recently lost one of those titanic figures with the passing of Richard P. Howe. For all of us who were privileged to know Dick Howe, Sr., this is a moment to celebrate the life and the legacy of a devoted Lowellian. My family first came to know Dick and his family when my husband Paul Tsongas served alongside him as a member of the Lowell City Council. They also shared a law office until Paul was elected to Congress. Dick was an important mentor and role model to Paul, exemplifying unwavering integrity, courageous leadership, and an abiding belief in the City. Dick held office during Lowell's extraordinary transformation and was one of the creative community leaders who helped turn a shared vision to revitalize Lowell into reality. Two years ago, we celebrated the dedication of The Richard P. Howe Bridge, which is a fitting tribute to a man who helped bridge many divides to bring people together in the name of the city he loved. He will be greatly missed.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House on September 24th and 25th to attend my daughter's wedding. Had I been present, I would have voted against H.R. 348. Rather than improving the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this legislation would only create confusion, increase litigation, and undermine one of our nation's bedrock environmental statutes.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Speaker, we have less than 5 legislative days here in Washington before the end of this fiscal year, but instead of funding the government, House majority leadership is focused on defunding Planned Parenthood. For nearly a century, Planned Parenthood has been one of the Nation's leading providers of high quality, affordable health care for women. It has fundamentally changed attitudes towards women's reproductive freedom, which has been essential to women's health and given women more control over their health care decisions. One in five women has relied on a Planned Parenthood health center for care in her lifetime. They are often one of the few affordable places for women to turn when they are searching for care. Cutting Federal funds to Planned Parenthood means taking away money for cervical cancer screenings, breast care screenings, and other types of necessary care. Madam Speaker, I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to come to the table and negotiate a way to fund the government and to stop these political games that put women's health at risk.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ranking Member Grijalva for his leadership and advocacy on behalf of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We have a generational responsibility to protect our Nation's remaining natural and historic resources for our children and our grandchildren. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been an instrumental tool, an invaluable tool in this effort. For over 50 years, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has carried out a simple, bipartisan idea: use revenues from the depletion of one Federal resource--offshore oil and gas--to conserve another--our land and water--and provide recreation opportunities for all Americans. It does not cost taxpayer money or contribute to the Federal deficit, relying instead on royalties paid by oil and gas companies in exchange for their right to develop offshore resources in waters that belong to all of the American people. LWCF has also proven to be a critical tool to protect some of our Nation's most significant cultural and historic sites, protecting places that have shaped and defined who we are as a people and a country and would not have been protected without support from the Federal Government. This past weekend, I was honored to host Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell at my annual River Day, an event I have held in my district for the past 9 years that celebrates the rivers that connect the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts and the many partners who work to protect these resources that provide clean drinking water, create tremendous recreational opportunities, and bring natural beauty to our daily life. As part of River Day, Secretary Jewell and I visited Minute Man National Historical Park, which commemorates the famous shot heard 'round the world in the very beginnings of our country. Like many national parks and public lands across the country, Minute Man, and all those who visit, have directly benefited from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Barrett's Farm is the former home of Colonel James Barrett, the commander of the Middlesex militia during the Revolutionary War. His farm was used to store colonial militia weapons and was the objective of the British march on Concord that inspired Paul Revere's ride. British forces marched from Boston to seize the munitions stored at the farm, but Barrett's militia confronted the British soldiers at the North Bridge, where the shot heard 'round the world was fired, launching America's war for independence. For many years, this important historic site, Barrett's Farm, was privately owned, restricted from the public, and was in a complete state of disrepair. Thanks to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the National Park Service was able to purchase Barrett's Farm from a willing, private local foundation, ensuring that this nationally significant historical site is preserved to be enjoyed by visitors for many years to come. Fifty years ago, our predecessors in this Congress had the wisdom and foresight to establish the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the benefit of future generations of Americans. Dismantling this program or letting its authorization expire disadvantages all in real and significant ways. I can't imagine the loss of the important piece of history of Barrett's Farm that the LWCF made possible to preserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting full funding and permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, making sure that it remains one of our Nation's most successful and effective conservation tools.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Ruth Moore Act. In 2012, 1 in 5 female and 1 in 100 male veterans told the VA that they had experienced sexual abuse while serving in the military. Yet, despite egregious prevalence of sexual abuse in the military, it remains difficult for veterans to receive disability benefits as a result of their military sexual trauma. In 2013, the Service Women's Action Network, the Yale Law School Veterans Legal Services Clinic, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Connecticut released a report that shows that veterans who experienced sexual assault have their benefits claims denied more often than veterans with other types of PTSD claims. The report also found the rate of granting these claims varied greatly, depending upon the VA regional office. The St. Paul, Minnesota, office granted only 26 percent of the MST claims they received, while the office in Los Angeles granted more than 88 percent of the claims they received. Last year the U.S. Government Accountability Office backed up these findings. GAO found approval rates ranged from 14 percent to 88 percent at different regional offices. The GAO also found that some medical examiners examining these claims required more evidence than others to establish these claims. The Ruth Moore Act we are considering today would require that the VA report data on military sexual trauma claims to Congress. While this reporting is a good step forward and could lead to more consistency and transparency in claims processing, I am disappointed that we are not considering Representative Pingree's original bill, which would have also made it easier for survivors of military sexual trauma to make their case and made the claims process more uniform. This bill is named after Ruth Moore, a Maine constituent of Representative Pingree who spent more than 20 years fighting for her own benefits. Other survivors should not be made to repeat her battle. I urge passage of this bill.

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. TSONGAS. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Ms. TSONGAS. May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I want to close by reiterating that, instead of working together on a bipartisan basis to improve the health of our national forests, this bill irresponsibly chips away at the environmental safeguards of the National Environmental Policy Act and places tremendous burdens, as we have just heard, on American citizens seeking to participate in the public review process of Forest Service programs. I am glad that the majority acknowledges the urgent need to address fire borrowing, but we still have concerns with this proposal and it in no way offsets the many other serious problems with this legislation developed without any input from committee Democrats or meaningful testimony from the Forest Service. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Polis. As my colleague stated, title III would require anyone who challenges a project on forest land in the Federal court system to put up a bond covering all litigation expenses of the government. Plaintiffs would only get their bond back if they prevailed on all their claim. Further, it would not allow litigants to recover attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. While my colleagues across the aisle have said it doesn't prevent anyone from coming forward, we do know that the impact would be that it would prevent any plaintiffs, except those large companies with deep pockets, from bringing lawsuits against these projects, essentially keeping out the average American citizen from having their voice heard. I strongly support this amendment.

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would change the parameters of contracts that have already been awarded through a competitive bidding process. Stewardship end result contracting is a critical tool used to achieve land management goals across our national forests and grasslands. In addition to making the authority for stewardship contracting permanent, last year's farm bill directed the Forest Service to make the first liability provisions in integrated resource timber contracts equal to liability provisions typically found in timber sale contracts. Earlier this year the Forest Service issued rulemaking carrying out this directive. This was a commonsense change, and I agree with the sponsors of this amendment that this is a worthwhile change. However, their amendment would retroactively extend the updated liability requirement to contracts that were awarded before the farm bill was signed into law. The Forest Service would, therefore, have to modify existing contracts, which is not only a burden for the agency and the contract awardees, but it is unfair to companies that did not participate in the competitive bidding process because of their understanding of the fire liability requirements. Congress should not change contracts that have already been awarded through the competitive bidding process. For that reason, I oppose the adoption of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. While it does nothing to address our underlying concerns with the bill, the promotion of advanced wood products is an important priority, and I commend my colleague from Washington, Mr. Kilmer, for taking on this issue. The amendment directs the Forest Service to establish a pilot project to promote the production of advanced wood products. Production of these products, like cross-laminated timber, or CLT, is a growing market with many practical applications. Growing this market here in the United States is an important economic development opportunity, and I thank Mr. Kilmer for his efforts in promoting this opportunity.

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

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our national forests are a public good that are tasked to provide multiple benefits to the American people. These include clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, open space, as well as robust recreation and timber economies that provide jobs and partner with Federal land managers to improve forest health. Everyone agrees that we must increase the pace of restoration work to limit the impacts of catastrophic wildfires and to improve the long- term health of our forests. H.R. 2647 does contain some new thinking and potentially useful concepts that, if done right, could help the Forest Service achieve its long-term goal of healthy, sustainable forests. For example, the bill provides incentives for collaboration, which has been identified as a priority by witnesses from both sides of the aisle. It also proposes some creative ways to finance forest restoration projects developed through collaboration. H.R. 2647 also offers a potential solution to the devastating impact of fire borrowing, the practice of transferring funds away from forest restoration projects for use in fighting wildfires. Throughout the debate over forest policy and this particular bill, Democrats, including myself, have urged the majority to deal with how we pay for the largest and most catastrophic wildfires, which represent only 1 percent of wildfires, but consume 30 percent of the entire agency's firefighting budget. I am glad that the majority acknowledges the urgent need to address the fact that over 50 percent of the Forest Service budget goes to fighting wildfires, squeezing out funds needed for all other critical Forest Service programs, most especially those that focus on forest health. However, these helpful provisions do not offset the many serious concerns that I still have with this legislation, which was developed without any input from Natural Resources Committee Democrats. In fact, when the Federal Lands Subcommittee held its hearing, the bill was still in draft form. This process even left the Forest Service without the opportunity to provide adequate or meaningful testimony. Instead of working together on a bipartisan basis to improve the health of our national forests, about which we all care, this bill irresponsibly chips away at the environmental safeguards of the National Environmental Policy Act and places tremendous burdens on American citizens seeking to participate in the public review process of Forest Service projects. For example, H.R. 2647 would ``categorically exclude'' or exempt a wide range of timber and restoration projects from critical environmental analysis and public review. This means that thousands of acres of sensitive ecosystems would be much more vulnerable to degradation and damage. The changes to the judicial review process raise serious constitutional concerns, eroding some of the bedrock principles of the American legal system that protect the basic rights of citizens to participate in the Federal decisionmaking process and to hold their government accountable. If this legislation were to become law, a citizen challenging a Federal decision would be required to post a bond equal to the government's cost, expenses, and attorneys' fees. If plaintiffs lose, the government is paid out of that bond. But if plaintiffs win--and by win, I mean a court has to rule in favor of plaintiffs on all causes of action--plaintiffs simply have their bond returned and are precluded from getting an award of attorneys' fees. As our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee can attest, this provision flies directly in the face of American legal precedent. Public lands, including our national forests, belong to all Americans. They are a public good. Bedrock environmental laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act, makes sure that the public voice is heard and that critical habitats are protected not only for species that rely on our national forests and grasslands, but also for American citizens who depend on these lands for their drinking water and economic livelihoods or simply to enjoy their treasured beauty. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS. I yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Ms. TSONGAS

Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I do appreciate that my colleague across the aisle has said that it does make perfect sense to have an ocean policy. The ocean policy is a business plan for the oceans that seeks to maximize the benefits for all of its shareholders, the American people. I certainly know that we in Massachusetts have a great appreciation for the complex task it seeks to undertake in order to protect that which we value most, the ocean off our coast. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. TSONGAS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.