IRS FAST Act

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman's amendment would block the EPA from regulating methane emissions from sources in the oil and gas sector.

Methane is a primary component of natural gas and is a potent greenhouse gas with global warming potential more than 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.

In 2013, nearly one-third of the methane emissions in the United States came from oil and gas production, processing, transmission, and distribution. There is no doubt, no doubt at all that methane contributes to the increased levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, which will contribute to long-lasting changes in our climate such as rising global temperatures, sea level rising, changes in weather and precipitation patterns.

Public health risks include more heat waves and drought, worsening smog, increased intensity of extreme weather events, and increasing the range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread diseases such as Lyme disease, West Nile Virus, and Zika.

The disgraced former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, tried to delay this rule, but the courts blocked that effort and ruled that the EPA cannot delay implementation. When is the majority going to stop the assault on the environment?

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I oppose this amendment. Climate change threatens the health and welfare for current and future generations.

As the gentlemen have pointed out, Mr. Chairman, industry has moved-- has moved, in part, because of pressure from the EPA, and, in part, because of just the financial loss of allowing this methane gas to escape into the atmosphere. It is dollars that are burning up.

These are precious resources that we are taking from the Earth, and we should make sure that we don't waste any of it, and that is why I think the EPA rule should not be delayed.

As has been pointed out, industry has the ability to capture this methane. It has the ability to make money from it, and I want to just make sure that we encourage everyone in the industry to move forward.

Mr. Chairman, let me the give you an example. The Bakken Oil Field, which is in North Dakota--I am very familiar with it because I spent many a summer in that area--burns brighter than the entire metropolitan area of the Twin Cities at night because of the flares from the methane that are being burnt. That energy should be captured. It should be saved. We should be conservationists for future generations. We must take action, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very harmful rider, and it would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of carbon as part of rulemaking. The social cost of carbon is an estimate of economic damages associated with small increases of carbon dioxide emissions in a given year.

It represents the best scientific information available, incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory analyses. Weakening or eliminating use of social cost of carbon as a tool for Federal agencies that would ignore the sobering cost of health, environment, and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts.

We cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, so I strongly oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate again: We should be using the best scientific information available, and we should be incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory analysis.

When we see children being hospitalized because of intense smog, more people suffering respiratory and heart disease, and other impacts from that, we all pay for that. Whether we pay for it in emergency room visits, we pay for it in our insurance, there are many ways in which we are individually paying for the pollution that is created, let alone recognizing the effects it has on climate change.

So, simply, again, we cannot afford to abandon science while trying to tackle climate change, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out, this amendment would prohibit the implementation of Washington State's revised water quality criteria. This standard protects communities from exposure to toxic contaminants, such as PCB, arsenic, and mercury in the fish that they eat.

Being from Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, I understand fish advisories very well. I often see signs that limit fish consumption for pregnant women, and for children in particular.

This action, however, would ignore court decisions and the voices of Native American Tribes, Asian-Pacific Islander communities, and fishing interests, all of which agree that seafood consumption standards are necessary in order to protect public health and water quality. In fact, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission has asked that Congress reject this amendment because it puts the treaty rights that have been protected and the resources of Tribes in Washington at risk.

Many native families subsist on the fish that they catch. Passing this amendment lowering water quality standards puts these families at greater risk of poisoning from their traditional foods.

There is a lot of funding in this bill and some of the other bills that we have on the floor, Mr. Chairman, that work to prevent diabetes or to lower risk from diabetes with high blood sugar. Tribal nations are finding that returning to native foods, such as fish, is a great and excellent way of preventing or reducing the effects of diabetes.

But after years of failure by Washington State to propose a protective standard, EPA finally put forth a standard which is more protective and meets the Clean Water Act requirements.

Now, I understand that the regulated community has always been uneasy about what stricter standards might be. The revised water quality criteria take steps to address their concerns.

The standard approved the use of new implementation tools, including a longer compliance schedule and intake credits. An intake credit means that, if the water comes to you with a pollutant and you don't discharge it, you are not responsible for having to remove it. So if you didn't pollute it, you are not responsible for cleaning it up.

This amendment would circumvent all of the work that has been done to devise a standard that protects public health and water quality.

Furthermore, Washington State officials believe that, despite the Congresswoman's good intentions--and I do believe that these are good intentions--this amendment would hurt the State of Washington. It would not actually help the dischargers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when humans consume contaminated fish, it results in serious health impacts, such as cancer, organ damage and reproductive dysfunction, or impairment in brain development.

High fish-consuming communities--as I have mentioned, Native American Tribes and Asian-Pacific Islander communities--need the protections afforded by this revised water quality standard.

I would like to, for the Record, again state that this amendment is not supported by the State of Washington or the Tribal communities in the area.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Clearly, more work needs to be done. I look forward to having this amendment not pass and for people to get down to doing the serious work that needs to be done to address the gentlewoman's concerns.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the EPA from implementing or enforcing its greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for medium-and heavy-duty engines.

Specifically, this amendment carves out an exemption for trailers. These fuel standards were jointly developed by the EPA and the Department of Transportation, and they will improve fuel efficiency and cut carbon pollution to reduce the impacts of climate change.

In fact, the EPA and DOT estimate that these standards will lower CO2 emissions by approximately 1 billion metric tons and cut fuel costs by $170 million. And cutting fuel costs is always a good thing to go do.

These standards will achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions that are nearly equal to those associated with all the energy used by U.S. residents in 1 year.

These efficiency fuel standards have been in place since 2016, and companies around the world have already made massive investments in the cleaner technology. Blocking the rule now would have negative consequences for human health and the environment, but also for the economy.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this rule promotes a generation of cleaner, more fuel efficient trucks. President Obama was right when he said: ``We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.''

This amendment is harmful, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 504 and as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I offer amendments en bloc. A list of the included amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers. I rise in support of the amendments en bloc, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's support for robust funding of the Superfund program, particularly the cleanup program.

There is a need for Congress to make progress to address the backlog of 1,300 sites on the national priority list. The bill proposes to do so with a $47.6 million increase for cleanup work. However, the amendment proposes merely to increase EPA's enforcement budget by $12 million, with a stated objective of reducing BLM's oil and gas management program.

The committee wrote a balanced bill, and I support the wise use of Federal oil and gas resources. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I would be happy to engage the gentleman from Colorado in a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his amendment, and I fully agree with his concerns about the backlogs, but I have concerns with the proposed offset and appreciate the intention to withdraw it.

The committee has made a concerted effort in recent years to fix these problems and has increased the recovery account by almost $4 million over the last 2 years.

Under House Republican pressure over the past 7 years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has delisted more species than all other previous years combined, but, clearly, we still have a long way to go.

The Service has been directed and funded to complete all 5-year reviews within the period required by law, and the committee will continue to press the Service to see that they eliminate these backlogs.

I thank the gentleman again for raising this issue, and I pledge to work with him on this.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 504, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2. The list of the amendments included in the en bloc is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc and urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Chairman Frelinghuysen, I move to strike the last word.

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I certainly urge Members to support it.

This bill maintains the increases provided last year for deferred maintenance and increases the construction account by $10 million. This amendment will further our efforts to address the longstanding deferred maintenance needs.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's overall goal is to continue funding for the AML pilot project, consistent with a fiscal year 2017 enacted level, and structure for the six Appalachian States.

Therefore, we can accept this package of amendments at this time, work toward maintaining funding for 6 States in a final fiscal year 2018 enacted bill. If we are able to achieve that goal, I hope we can count on the gentleman's support to pass both this House package and to enact the 2018 end-of-year spending bill.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned at our full committee markup, I understood that my colleague, Dr. Harris, was offering his amendment to address local concerns from his residents with respect to the visibility of offshore turbines. With all of these offshore projects, many varying viewpoints need to be taken into account. I appreciate that we have been able to discuss many of these views and concerns here today.

It is my hope that we can work with the authorizing committees of jurisdiction, the administration, and all interested stakeholders to identify some better solutions as we move forward through the fiscal year 2018 process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am certainly prepared to accept this amendment. I understand the importance of the program to the gentleman from Pennsylvania and other Members in the Appalachian region. I look forward to working with him and all of the interested Members.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, given our allocation, which was $824 million below the fiscal year 2017 level, we had to find areas to trim. It is also important to note that the bill does not support the elimination of the program, as has been proposed in the President's budget. It was the committee's effort to find some middle ground.

While I can certainly appreciate the gentleman's interest to maintain fiscal year 2017 enacted level, the allocation of the committee doesn't support those levels. So, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate my friend's support for the research conducted at the EPA, and particularly the Research Triangle Park. I am a supporter of the world class research that occurs at RTP with respect to the computational toxicology program. That research has helped to identify alternative high throughput testing methodologies that have reduced the number of animals used in laboratories.

Given the current allocation, however, which is $824 million below the

fiscal year 2017 level, we had to find areas to trim. We certainly don't have a funding level that can support the fiscal year 2017 enacted levels, but we tried to do the best we could to find common ground.

I certainly look forward to working with the gentleman in the future, if we happily come to some kind of budget agreement, where we can reallocate funds to something as important as this. But, again, because of our allocation, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

While the amendment itself is drafted in order as a general increase to EPA geographic programs, the gentleman proposes to fund a program that was not requested in the budget and is not authorized.

Further, he proposes to reduce grants from DERA, the DERA program, which is a key program for improving air quality in areas like mine that are in a nonattainment area with existing standards.

For those reasons, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am sorry. I didn't hear the gentleman, and I happily accept his offer to withdraw the amendment. I will happily work with him to see if we can't work some time in the future to find room for this program that the gentleman is obviously supportive of.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

Mr. Chairman, I have no opposition to this en bloc amendment moving forward, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers present at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

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

Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Calvert of California

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this en bloc amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to all these amendments included in the en bloc. Many of them use offsets from accounts in the Environmental Protection Agency of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they are already severely underfunded.

I am particularly troubled by one amendment to this group that threatens our Nation's most visited wilderness area. Let me tell you why I oppose the Emmer amendment.

The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, located in northern Minnesota, is one of the last truly wild places in America. These 1.1 million acres of unspoiled woodlands and more than 1,000 pristine lakes are beloved by adventurers, canoers, and sportsmen from all across our country. This national treasure lies in the vast Rainy River Watershed and flows north into Voyageurs National Park and onward towards Canada.

Recently, there has been a push to conduct sulfide-ore copper mining less than 3 miles from the Boundary Waters Wilderness. This mining threatens to irreplaceably damage the waters, the wildlife, and the landscape. Sulfur ore mining is the most toxic industry in America, polluting waterways with acid drainage that contains arsenic, mercury, and lead.

In 2014, the Mount Polley sulfide-ore mine in British Columbia failed, dumping billions of liters of toxic sludge and leaving permanent environmental damage in its wake.

To protect the boundary waters from this type of destruction, the Forest Service acted last December and launched a thorough environmental analysis with public engagement to assess what type of mining, if any, is appropriate on Federal lands and this watershed for the next 20 years. The Trump and the Obama administrations have both agreed we need a thorough, scientific-based assessment of the best management of this sensitive ecosystem and conservation of our boundary waters.

The Emmer amendment upends this careful process. It pushes aside the Forest Service's ongoing study. It mandates that dangerous copper and sulfide mining will be allowed in the watershed, regardless of the conclusions of this environmental study, and it intentionally ignores a public process that hundreds of thousands of Americans weighed in on with comments on both sides of the issue. In my opinion, this amendment sets a horrible precedent, wastes taxpayer dollars already invested in this study, and threatens a national treasure, and it should never become law.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment that takes more money away from an already starved Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's main operating account is already cut by $240 million.

The EPA plays a critical role in keeping Americans safe both during natural disasters like Hurricane Harvey and on a day-to-day basis. I know this because the EPA, right now, is cleaning up a toxic waste site that has been recently discovered in my congressional district.

Unfortunately, the very air we breathe and the water we drink is endangered by the funding and policy decisions that are made in this bill, and their consequences will be negatively felt in communities across this Nation.

Now, this amendment would increase funding for the National Park Service, something I do support. I have just been to Glacier National Park, where I saw their backlog, and I agree wholeheartedly that we should be investing in our parks, but it cannot be done at the expense of our public health.

Republicans have chosen to put forward an omnibus bill that leaves nearly $5 billion of nondiscretionary funds on the table. So rather than gutting the EPA farther, we should be using all the resources available to us and working on a bipartisan budget agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose an amendment that takes more money away from the EPA.

As I mentioned before, this bill already severely cuts the EPA's main operating account by $240 million. The air we breathe and the water we drink are endangered by the policy decisions that are being made in this bill. The consequences will be felt in communities across the Nation. I understand, for many, cutting the EPA is an easy target, but I want my colleagues to understand what this amendment would actually be cutting, if adopted.

This account funds programs that are important to both sides of the aisle, including permitting for construction projects across the country, toxic risk prevention, parts of the successful Brownfields Program, and pesticide licensing.

So I understand that the money would direct more funding to States in Appalachia. Appalachia is suffering. They are suffering from the raging environmental harm caused by coal mining. But, unfortunately, I cannot support any deeper cuts to the EPA.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I appreciate the challenges that the gentleman is suffering in his State and throughout Appalachia, but I cannot support any more deeper cuts to the EPA, so I must oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment that takes more money, again, away from an already starved EPA.

This is a duplicate from the last amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia earlier. It cuts another $32 million from the EPA's operating accounts.

Our country right now is dealing with two catastrophes caused by hurricanes. The destruction is going to be felt for years. The EPA right now is one of the primary Federal agencies responsible for protecting human health, monitoring air and water, and managing recovery and cleanup, so it would be simply reckless to adopt another amendment that would further cripple the EPA.

These two amendments would cut the EPA by $108 million.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I understand clearly what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is trying to accomplish.

I wish we could accomplish that goal. But with already a $240 million cut to the EPA and all of the challenges on the EPA--we just recently agreed on this floor by a voice vote to cut the EPA another $75 million. This would be another $33 million.

So I hope that we can reach a place in the funding that the chairman and I have where we can address the serious concerns that you bring to the floor where you had success with programs. But, at the same time, I would be cutting opportunities for cleanup, especially with all of the disasters looming--forest fires, disasters, and cleanup I just had recently in my district that came out of the blue. The EPA wouldn't have money to respond.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I want to also commend the chairman and working with the whole committee to make sure that the arts and humanities receive the funding that they did.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Langevin

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $12 million in cuts to the already underfunded Superfund Enforcement program, with an equivalent cut to Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas leasing program.

Superfund Enforcement is the epitome of Federal fiscal responsibility. It ensures that polluters pay for the cleanup and the mess they have caused.

For over 35 years, EPA's Superfund Enforcement program has enabled thousands of site investigations at cleanups and has required viable responsible parties to either conduct the work or pay for the cleanups of these Superfund sites, in other words, hold parties accountable for the action and correction of their activities.

Any cuts to these funds clearly places corporate interests over that of the health and financial well-being of the American people.

According to the EPA, the Superfund Enforcement program's efforts to negotiate settlement agreements and issue order for cleanup work accounts for approximately 69 percent of all the cleanup work currently underway at Superfund sites around this country.

For every dollar the Superfund Enforcement program spends, private parties commit $8 toward cleanup work. The enforcement funding is essential in saving taxpayer dollars and the scarce resources of the Superfund trust fund to address truly abandoned and orphaned sites.

As of August 1, 2017, there were 1,845 Superfund sites in the country. These sites include dangerous and toxic substances not just in my backyard but in everybody's backyard.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Superfund sites tend to be located near lower income communities and around communities of color. Approximately 53 million people live within 3 miles of a Superfund site in this country, and 46 percent of them live in poorer communities and communities of color. Fifteen percent of those residents live below the poverty level.

According to a National Association of Clean Air Agencies report: ``Without EPA's enforcement, companies could avoid reporting, or minimize the reported amount of toxic materials released to the environment.''

Following one of the most catastrophic hurricanes to hit Texas, the EPA found that 13 Superfund sites have been flooded or could face damage as a result of Hurricane Harvey.

Administrator Pruitt has repeatedly tried to justify his cuts to the agency by claiming that he wants the agency to go ``back to the basics.'' I can't think of anything more fundamental than cleaning up the most toxic sites in the Nation to protect the health of the people who live nearby in those communities.

Restoring the ability of the EPA to self-sustain its core mission should be a no-brainer for those on both sides of the aisle. In order to restore the funding, my amendment will make a modest cut to the BLM's oil and gas program. This program is a massive giveaway to the very polluters that have made the existence of the Superfund program a necessity.

Currently, 7,950 drilling permits are approved and not being used. There are 14.4 million acres of public land under lease and not producing. There is no justification to dole out more taxpayer money in order to expedite and speed up the permitting or leasing practices when we have that amount not being used and over close to 15 million acres under lease, as we speak.

A report by Oil Change International recently found that the U.S. Government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015. Meanwhile, oil giant ExxonMobil's profits more than doubled in the first quarter of this year, which equaled $4.1 billion in profits for just that one quarter. They certainly did not need more taxpayer money while communities across the United States continue to be exposed to toxic and hazardous pollution.

My amendment restores, in part, EPA's core mission to protect the public health of the American people and to hold all polluters responsible and liable for the environmental and health risks they cause.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a prudent, necessary protection of public health and the environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $1 million in cuts to the Environmental Justice program within the EPA, with an equivalent cut to leadership and administration within the DOI Office of the Secretary.

In 1992, the program was created and originally called the Environmental Equity Office. It was created after a series of releases of reports that revealed polluter sites were disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color.

With minimal support, the program has provided communities with leveraged resources to do things like revitalize neighborhoods, build health centers, expand affordable housing, create green space and recreation areas, and, more importantly, raise the awareness of the disproportionate treatment in both affected communities and decisionmakers.

Despite this success within the EPA for decades, we are not even close to dealing with the issue of environmental justice.

In 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that racial minorities and low-income communities are still disproportionately affected by the siting of waste disposal facilities, permitted emissions facilities, and that they often lack the political and financial clout to properly bargain with polluters when fighting a decision or seeking redress.

A report by the staff of the House Committee on Natural Resources found that clean water access and sanitation infrastructure on numerous reservations across the Nation more closely resemble developing countries than they do the rest of the Nation. Nearly half of all homes on Tribal land lack access to adequate drinking water, sewage, or solid waste disposal facilities. As a result, Native families often end up drinking unclean water that increases disease risks and impairs Tribal economic development.

Additionally, low-income communities of color have been on the frontline of Houston's petrochemical industry for decades, and when Harvey struck, they were some of the first to feel the effects as chemical plants caught fire, refineries began flaring toxins, and polluted floodwater went into their neighborhoods.

The EPA Office of Environmental Justice helps integrate concerns of these communities within the general activities of the agencies. This is not a program that can afford to be scaled back, especially as concerns of environmental justice continue to arise around Hurricane Harvey and now in Irma's path. It is critical that we protect frontline communities and communities of color from disparate impacts caused by environmental pollution. One million dollars is not a lot of

money for this task, but it reaffirms the significance of the office and our sense of equality.

Today I ask my colleagues to join in defense of these communities and show them that Congress cares about their public health, their housing, and their importance as people.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 831, I call up the bill (H.R. 5444) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue Service, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on H.R. 5444, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we are taking the biggest and boldest steps in 20 years, to redesign the IRS with a singular focus, taxpayer service.

This bill will redesign the IRS for the first time in two decades. It refocuses the agency to live up to its mission of putting taxpayers first. Finally, it will rein in its enforcement powers to prevent future abuse.

There are two important pieces of legislation being considered before the House today, H.R. 5444, the Taxpayer First Act; and H.R. 5445, the 21st Century IRS Act. These bipartisan bills, the product of 2 years of work by the Committee on Ways and Means, will make the IRS a truly taxpayer-first agency in a number of different ways.

First off, this bill puts an emphasis on customer service. We are requiring the IRS to submit to Congress plans to restructure the agency to improve efficiency, enhance cybersecurity, and better serve taxpayers. This will guarantee that the IRS is living up to its ``quality service'' motto, while holding the agency accountable if it fails to meet these standards.

In addition, our legislation encourages the IRS to adopt commonsense customer service features commonly seen in the private sector, such as a call-back option.

Secondly, we are overhauling the IRS' enforcement tools so families and small businesses can't have property seized without fair notice and due process. Over and over again, we have heard stories from across the country of absolutely tragic abuses of power by the IRS.

For example, we heard from Andrew Clyde, who served three combat tours in Iraq. Then he came home and opened a successful small business in Georgia, only to have the IRS unfairly seize $950,000 from him. Our legislation prevents outrageous enforcement abuses like this to protect American taxpayers from unfair seizures.

Thirdly, the Taxpayer First Act reminds the IRS they are not just an enforcement agency, they are also our tax administrator. That is why this bill changes the title of the IRS chief from Commissioner to, more accurately, Administrator.

Additionally, and this is important, Mr. Speaker, we are shifting the burden of proof back onto the IRS when examining taxpayers. This legislation establishes an Independent Office of Appeals within the agency to ensure that taxpayers receive a fair and impartial review of disputes they may have with the IRS.

It shouldn't take a Freedom of Information Act request to see what evidence the IRS is bringing against you. This legislation will require that the IRS provide you with your own case file prior to any review of your dispute with the agency. It puts taxpayers on a level playing field, which is where they deserve to be.

In the 21st Century IRS Act, we are revamping the IRS' nearly ancient technology and better positioning the agency to proactively combat cyber threats.

Right now, IRS technology is so outdated that some systems date to the 1960s, and fax machines are still used for some official communications. This bill modernizes the IRS and ensures the agency is accountable for the billions of dollars in IT that it spends each year.

Lastly, the 21st Century IRS Act enhances the agency's ability to combat identity theft tax refund fraud by strengthening the IRS' partnership with States and with cybersecurity experts.

This bill requires the IRS to practically partner with States in the private sector that effectively combat identify thieves trying to steal our refund.

I want to thank Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Lynn Jenkins and Oversight Subcommittee Ranking Member John Lewis for their tireless work on this important bill.

With the new Tax Code, it is time for a redesign of our tax agency. This bipartisan legislation truly refocuses the IRS to make it a taxpayer-first agency.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, before I turn over the floor, I would like to recognize a good friend and trusted policy adviser, and by every measure, one of the very best to ever serve the Ways and Means Committee in the House, Mr. David Stewart.

David began his congressional journey in 2000, when he came to intern for Ways and Means Committee member, Congressman Phil English. Over his career as a staffer, David became a trusted voice on policy for Speaker John Boehner, for Speaker Paul Ryan, and, 2\1/2\ years ago, for me, when he joined the Ways and Means Committee as staff director.

This past year, with David's steady leadership and immutable resolve, we were able to pass the first tax reform in a generation, which has boosted our economy and helped so many American families. David's focus has always been on making lives better for all Americans, and I stand here to today to tell him: Job well done.

David is a selfless public servant. He sacrificed so much time away from his family--his wife, Betsy, and his daughters, Grace and Poppy-- and yet he has served his nation so well.

To say David works hard is an understatement. Once, when he was asked how many hours he worked per week, David replied, simply, with, ``A lot.'' This also shows David's wit and his wry sense of humor that has always made busy days brighter.

His dedication to mastering intricate policy is unmatched, and I know, Mr. Speaker, I speak for all members and staff of the Ways and Means Committee when I say: Thank you, David, for your service to the House and the Committee on Ways and Means. You will be greatly missed around here, my friend.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, April 12, 2018.

Hon. Kevin Brady,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Brady: I am writing to you regarding H.R.

5444, the ``Taxpayer First Act''. There are certain

provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill the Committee on Financial Services

does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill which fall within its

Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to

name members of this committee to any conference committee

which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

5444 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the

cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this

matter and others between our respective committees.

Sincerly,

Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), and I ask unanimous consent that she may control that time.