Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2020
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to offer my amendment to H.R. 3055.
Mr. Chair, it is frequently said that working men and women feel left out by their government's decisionmaking process. Too often in Washington, those with the greatest financial means can get the closest to the political, governmental, and regulatory process and, therefore, be better able to influence it.
Just as bad is that, in this gridlock political machine, what little action that does take place often takes the path of least resistance.
So when a species of whale is at risk of extinction for a whole slew of complex reasons--whether it be the overfishing that took place more than a century ago, climate change and warming waters that wreak havoc upon a whale's habitat, seismic air gun testing for oil and natural gas, deadly ship strikes by a large shipping industry, or the risk of entanglement in a lobsterman's fishing gear--who, and to what degree, does Washington regulate each? And who has a seat at the table to ensure that the process behind such decisions is fair and equitable?
Do we believe that a small group of fishermen in Maine have as strong a place at the table as does the fossil fuel or shipping industry, or the governmental affairs director with a K Street office in Washington?
I don't think so.
So NOAA, facing the threat of lawsuits, has rushed ahead using a decision support tool that was developed for the purpose of reducing ship strikes by the Navy and fed that tool with old data and hasty assumptions and have come forward to require Maine lobstermen to achieve a 60 percent risk reduction in their fishery.
What assumptions you might ask?
Maine's own Department of Marine Resources argues the tool is flawed because areas with a lot of fishing gear but few whales are labeled ``high risk,'' and areas with a lot of whales and less fishing gear are considered ``low risk.''
This scientific tool uses outdated habitat data from the mid- Atlantic, which is far away and different than the gulf of Maine. When attributing responsibility for injury or death of whale to fishing gear of an unknown origin, NOAA assumes an equal distribution between U.S. and Canadian gear, despite strong, recent scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary. And the data used do not accurately reflect the distribution shift of right whales since the year 2010.
Recent studies have established firm links between warming waters in the gulf of Maine and a 90 percent reduction of the plankton that right whales eat, calling into question whether the whales have stopped visiting the warming, plankton-depleted waters of eastern Maine entirely, which would greatly reduce the likelihood that any whale be entangled in Maine lobstermen's gear.
It is reasonable to ask NOAA to allow its decision support tool to undergo a peer-review process before enforcing punitive regulations upon Maine fisherman. Maine's Commissioner of the Department of Marine Resources has said that ``peer-reviewed science is the cornerstone of the decisionmaking process.'' Apparently, not in this case.
This amendment would require NOAA to use relevant data and an effective tool to ensure that its regulations target areas of high risk and yield the most effective conservation benefits possible to protect the right whale without unfairly burdening Maine lobstermen.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that the person who runs this program for NOAA has actually recently said that they intend to move forward with regulations, then do a peer review, and then, perhaps, come back with a different conclusion.
I think that they have got this backwards. They should be doing it the other way around, and that is what is at the heart of this amendment. I would urge support at this time for the amendment, as well as for the Moulton amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), and I thank her for joining me on this amendment and for her leadership on behalf of Maine fisheries.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Kim, I have an amendment at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to H.R. 3055 on behalf of my colleague, Representative Andy Kim.
Over the past decade, more than 400 Veteran Treatment Courts have been established across our country. These courts address a serious problem to those who served. For veterans with post-traumatic stress, substance abuse simply compounds the issues that they face on a daily basis.
More than 2 out of 10 veterans with post-traumatic stress also experience substance abuse problems. These are service men and women who gave much to our country, only to come back and struggle long after their time in uniform has come to an end.
As representatives of a grateful Nation, we owe them solutions to the problems they face. Veteran Treatment Courts have been that solution for thousands of veterans and they continue to be so.
That is why this amendment would increase funding for this lifesaving program by $1 million. That is funding to help provide an alternative to incarceration for those in need. That is funding to help improve access to mental health services and rehabilitative care. That is funding to improve the functionality of our local VA services and better serve those who served us.
This is a proven program that addresses a critical need in a community that has given much to this country. Let's join together today to give something back to them.
With that, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment. I have seen these courts at work in such positive ways amongst my brothers and sisters who served in the military.
I want to thank Representative Andy Kim for offering this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source