Floor Statements

I want to thank my colleague, Representative Murphy, for holding this Special Order on such a critically important topic.

And you mention that my district borders the State of Pennsylvania, and it does. And I have had so many incidents of engagement with my constituents on the opioid addiction issue. Several of them really stick out.

Representative Murphy, one of those happened in Pennsylvania. Occasionally, because my district goes all the way up to the top into northeast Ohio, occasionally I fly in and out of Pennsylvania. I was there a couple of years ago, and I was sitting in the lounge waiting for a flight. I happened to be on a phone call, and I noticed that a gentleman began to look my direction. He very patiently waited until I got off the telephone, and then he came over, introduced himself. He recognized me, and he said: I am not one of your constituents, but I know that you represent a district just across the border in Ohio. He said: But I want to implore you, to beg you and your colleagues in Congress, please do something about the opioid addiction. He said: Our 21-year-old son died of an overdose in January. He had just gotten out of a rehab, was doing well, had gotten a job. He came home one Friday night, said he was going out with some friends. The next morning his mother and I found him dead in his room.

I hear stories like that all of the time.

I can tell you that the opioid addiction epidemic that is streaking across our country is not one that we are going to be able to arrest our way out of. It is not one that we are going to be able to incarcerate our way out of. It is an issue, my dear colleagues, that is going to take everybody from the top to the bottom, from the President of the United States all the way down to the family members. I am talking about local government officials, law enforcement, the judiciary, faith-based organizations, community organizations. This is something we are going to have to all be engaged in.

We have appropriated, as you know, Representative Murphy, hundreds of millions of dollars, billions, in fact, to attack the opioid epidemic. More is needed. We are not going to be able to simply throw money at this problem. It is going to require a cultural change within our country.

I have so many other stories, but I don't want to take up more time because I know I have other colleagues here who want to testify on this very important issue.

Just know that I am with you. We take this issue very seriously in our district. Back in Ohio, we are constantly reaching out to law enforcement, mental health providers, healthcare providers, faith- and community-based organizations, and families on how to attack this problem.

I thank you for giving me a chance to speak on it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me time to speak up.

I, too, agree that Members of Congress should be subject to the same rules and laws that the American people are. So I support my colleague, Ms. McSally, in this legislation.

But, you know, I want to speak to the bigger, broader issue here. My colleague from Pennsylvania said: What about that family with that kid that has cancer?

Where was my colleague and the friends on the other side of the aisle when ObamaCare resulted in millions of policy cancellations and millions of Americans losing their coverage because of the broken promises?

Where was my colleague and the Democrats when millions of Americans were forced out of work because of the job-killing policies of ObamaCare?

Let me tell you something. The American people remembered that, and that is what happened in 2010.

We didn't hide in a back room to get what we are doing today done. We have been working on it for 6 years, and we are going to get it done today. We are going to meet the promises that we made to the American people, and starting today, ObamaCare is on its way out the door.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating Steve Stivers on his promotion to brigadier general. I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States Air Force, and I can tell you that every officer who puts on the uniform, in the quiet moments of their own minds, they dream of the day that maybe someday they might aspire to become a flag officer or to attain the rank of general officer.

I can tell you that, from my perspective, it is a lot easier to get elected to the House of Representatives than it is to earn the rank of general--at least that is what my experience shows. I can tell you, I never served under Steve Stivers and his command, but if his military leadership and performance is anything like his performance here in the House, he is going to represent the State of Ohio and our Nation very well.

Congratulations to my colleague, Steve Stivers. God bless you, and thank you for your service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, when the FCC reclassified the internet as a common carrier, utility-style service and adopted their rules regulating the use of consumer data by internet service providers, it represented a monumental shift in the way we view privacy.

Instead of a uniform, technology-neutral standard that balanced data protection with consumer choice, internet users were stuck with a two- sided approach that causes confusion and dampens competition. There is one set of rules for service providers, and one set for the rest of the internet ecosystem. But how often do consumers really recognize the difference between where their data is accessed and where it is stored?

Ultimately, consumers are actually harmed by the artificial sense of protection created by these rules. It is essential that we take steps to restore the time-tested framework embraced by the Federal Trade Commission.

We have talked a lot about protecting consumer privacy and data, but I haven't heard a lot about allowing the consumer to decide how their information is used. Consumers deserve to have the autonomy to control their information and their internet experience.

As Acting Chairman of the FTC Maureen Ohlhausen pointed out:

The FTC approach reflects the fact that consumer privacy

preferences differ greatly depending on the type of data and

its use.

There is widespread agreement that sensitive data, like financial or health information, should be strongly protected and opt-in appropriate. But what about other types of nonsensitive data? Let's not forget the ways that consumers benefit from allowing ISPs access to that kind of information.

Consumers should retain the ability to make the decisions that make sense for them when it comes to how their nonsensitive data is used and obtain the discounts or lower prices that can result. This vote isn't about reducing the level of privacy protection for consumers; it is about an FCC decision that ignored the preferences of consumers in favor of a regulatory power grab.

The FCC's privacy rules are an overreaching regulatory mess that create confusion and inconsistency for consumers, harm competition, and upend internet privacy as we know it.

Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November. In fact, they have been speaking loudly and clearly ever since this fatally flawed bill called ObamaCare was signed into law. And now we are hours away from the vote that the American people have been waiting years for.

This vote can be distilled down to simply this, and each Member of this body must ask themselves this simple question: Are they willing to allow ObamaCare to remain the law of the land? Or are we going to begin to restore healthcare decisions to the American people and their doctors?

Those who choose to vote against the American Health Care Act, regardless of how they attempt to justify it, will be voting to keep ObamaCare in place. This is an inescapable fact that will remain long after the smoke and spin and handwringing from political pundits following this vote has gone and disappeared, regardless of how the votes go.

There is no such thing as perfect legislation in a body of 435 men and women representing 435 different parts of the Nation.

There is consensus among the American people that this law should be repealed and replaced, and today the people's House will either acknowledge the will of the people or we will defy it.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 155.

Mr. Speaker, the Resolution of Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that we consider today, if enacted, would void the Stream Protection Rule (SPR). In light of an independent analysis of the potential impacts of the rule including the loss of at least one third of existing coal mining jobs, this resolution is absolutely critical for our Nation's coal miners, their communities, and the related industries that support and rely on coal mining.

If enacted, the joint resolution disapproving the SPR would bar the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from reissuing the rule in substantially the same form, or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as the SPR, unless specifically authorized by subsequently enacted legislation. The SPR represents a near-complete regulatory re-write by adding, amending or modifying 475 different regulations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) program. The unlawful and offending features of the rule include impermissibly duplicating and conflicting with other federal and state laws; diminishing the exclusive regulatory jurisdiction of States with approved programs under SMCRA; interfering with the primary governmental responsibility SMCRA delegates to States for developing, issuing and enforcing regulations for surface coal mining and reclamation operations within their borders; applying to underground mining operations standards and requirements intended for surface mining operations despite the distinct differences between surface and underground mining; and, requiring changes to approved state programs without a demonstration that the state program is no longer effective in meeting the purposes of SMCRA. Therefore, any rule which includes any of these components is substantially the same as the SPR for purposes of the Congressional Review Act.

An example of impermissible duplication or conflict with other federal and state laws or the authorities of other agencies would be a recently completed biological opinion and memorandum of understanding (MOU) between OSM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the SPR allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to effectively veto any SMCRA permit simply by withholding approval. Issuing SMCRA permits is the exclusive province of SMCRA regulatory authorities, which in most cases are the States with approved SMCRA programs. Nothing in SMCRA or the Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the power to disapprove, veto, or otherwise withhold a SMCRA permit. Any rule subsequently promulgated by OSM which gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the authority to directly or indirectly disapprove SMCRA permits would be substantially the same as the SPR and therefore impermissible.

There are many other provisions which overlap, duplicate, or conflict with the requirements of other state and federal laws, which is prohibited by Section 702 of SMCRA. For example, the SPR violates both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and SMCRA by claiming for OSM the authority not only to enforce the CWA, but to also superimpose regulations that duplicate, conflict with and override CWA programs. Similarly, OSM vastly expanded the applicability of the ESA by requiring states and operators to account for species proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, which runs counter to the intent of the ESA and would have circumvented the rulemaking process established in the Administrative Procedures Act. Such self-deputization and usurpation of authority is a cornerstone of the SPR and any future rulemaking by OSM which attempts to duplicate, usurp, conflict with, or otherwise overlap with the existing requirements of other state and federal laws and the authorities of other state and federal agencies would be substantially the same as the SPR.

The SPR includes dozens of provisions which diminish the states' authority under SMCRA. Because of the wide diversity in physical conditions across the nation's coal fields, Congress expressly delegated to the states the authority for developing and tailoring SMCRA's requirements to those conditions. A good example of how the rule tramples the states' authority is its attempt to set a national definition for ``material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.'' With the diversity in physical conditions and hydrology across the states and even within a state, it defies commons sense to promulgate a federal definition. It also robs the states of their delegated authority to tailor their rules in a manner that is suitable for meeting that statutory objective. To make matters worse, the rule precludes states from making appropriate adjustments on how SMCRA objectives should be achieved for distinct types of operations such as surface or underground mines. The rule is replete with examples of the mindset that only Washington knows best. Ironically, it's the states that possess the vast experience of regulating 97 percent of the coal mines in this country since SMCRA was passed in 1977. A rule that attempts to repeat this ``one-size-fits-all'' model would be substantially the same as the SPR

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a stalwart public servant. Dan Halliburton started his public service career as a law enforcement officer, eventually retiring in 2009 from the Ohio State Highway Patrol with over 32 years of service.

But he didn't stop there. He felt the call to serve more, and in 2010, Dan joined my team, tasked with representing the largest geographical and most rural district in the State of Ohio.

Very quickly, Dan distinguished himself as a man of and for the people. He expertly managed my transportation so that we could be out amongst the people I represent. He built lasting relationships with local elected officials, law enforcement, and business owners. But what set Dan apart, was his genuine care and concern for the people of Appalachia. It was reflected in the high level of service he provided them.

So on behalf of the hardworking people of eastern and southeastern Ohio, Godspeed to Dan Halliburton and his family as he begins his well- deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the stream protection rule is not about protecting streams. It was designed for one purpose--to regulate the coal mining industry out of business. It is the centerpiece of the Obama administration's war on coal.

The simple truth is revealed when you begin to follow the Office of Surface Mining's 7-year approach to writing this job-killing rule, a process which began only after the previous administration discarded the rule's predecessor, a 2008 regulation that underwent 5 years of extensive environmental review and public comment.

That was just the beginning. Since then, millions of taxpayer dollars have been needlessly spent developing this rule. Contractors were hired to help rewrite the rule, but then subsequently fired when it was leaked that the initial revisions of the rule would cost thousands of jobs, and that was within the first few months of this attempted rewrite.

Unfortunately, estimated job losses have only skyrocketed since the final rule was released. What is troubling is that, throughout the rule's rewrite, the administration refused to visit mines or to actually assess the impact of the rule on operating mines.

There were attempts to cover up data that concealed the rule's true economic impact. The Office of Surface Mining also repeatedly refused to provide Congress with important documents it used to develop the rule, while keeping State regulating agencies charged with implementing this onerous rule in the dark and at arm's length throughout the entire rewrite.

Now, after 7 years of this politically motivated rewrite, the previous administration issued the final rule as they were leaving town, well after the American people--particularly those men and women in coal country--had sent a clear message to Washington. Politically motivated attacks on the livelihoods of those who keep the lights on will not stand.

The issuance of this rule, after all these facts are considered, proves what I said earlier. This rule is about one thing: regulating the coal industry and putting thousands of hardworking Americans that depend on the coal industry for their livelihoods in the unemployment line.

No one cares more about our streams that run through coal country than those who live there, and no public officials know better how to create a balance between protecting both jobs and the environment than those serving in local and State governments that represent coal- producing communities. It is certainly not the beltway bureaucrats in Washington.

I look forward to what I hope to be and should be a bipartisan vote supporting today's important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is interesting to me that my colleagues on the other side take offense to this being referred to as a midnight rule. This is actually a midnight rule twice. Let's look at how this thing started.

In 2005, during the Bush administration, 5 years of effort went into codifying how coal mining operations should take place around streams. The last President announced, during his campaign, that he was going to make coal-fired energy financially, economically impossible, thereby launching his war on coal. There was a lawsuit with the Bush-era rule. The Interior Department and the administration settled, paying that settlement out of taxpayer dollars and then launching an effort to rewrite that rule.

In 2011 when we came in, they were planning to release that rule in April of 2011. What took 5 years to codify, they wanted to redo in just 4 months. Not only that, but they left the States out of the equation. The States complained about that. No one in the administration was listening.

When the contractors then told the truth about how many tens of thousands of jobs were going to be lost as a result of this rule, the administration fired the contractor that was doing the work. Not only that, they paid them in full. Now, go figure.

We have been back and forth with the administration asking that the States be involved, asking that the rulemaking process be transparent, asking, if it really had to do with stream protection, why was it talking about and why was it going to be negatively impacting underground coal mining that takes place hundreds, if not thousands, of feet below the surface of the Earth. You answer me that.

So, here we are today, and now we have the Congressional Review Act. I am so grateful that we have the opportunity to set the record straight and to do away with this rule now and forever.

I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 38 when it comes to the floor this week.

Mr. Chair, it is amazing to me now that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling to see the replacement before the repeal. What irony that is when--at that time the Speaker--the leader of their party, said: let's pass this law so we can see what is in it.

Well, the American people saw what is in it, and they don't like it. It is broken. It needs to be fixed.

The American people deserve a stable transition to a patient-centered healthcare system that gives them access to high-quality, affordable health care.

It has got to be done thoughtfully and carefully as it will impact millions--because I agree with my colleagues that it is going to impact millions. But it is going to positively impact millions if we do it right. And we will.

The only way to accomplish it in this current environment, the only way to accomplish the repeal of ObamaCare, is through the budget reconciliation process. And so this budget resolution that we are going to be considering today is simply a requirement, the triggering mechanism for the reconciliation process.

We are going to get to the fiscal year 2018 budget, a budget that balances, a budget that puts us on a path of fiscal sustainability, but this resolution essentially fires the starting pistol, Mr. Chairman, for repeal of ObamaCare, which has failed the American people.

We will be addressing the spending levels for the future in the fiscal year 2018 budget. This is something the American people have demanded, and now Republicans are going to deliver on it.

``Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. This important legislation will bring certainty to the Department of Energy's review process for LNG export applications, create American jobs, continue spurring America's manufacturing comeback, and provide a stable source of energy to our allies in Europe and around the world.

Thanks to the energy renaissance occurring throughout eastern and southeastern Ohio and across the United States, America is able to produce large quantities of natural gas like never before, enough to meet our domestic natural gas demands and export excess LNG to the global marketplace.

Through the abundance of natural gas, we have an opportunity to significantly affect geopolitics and to create American jobs, but only if we enact smart policies like H.R. 351.

The window of opportunity for LNG exports will not remain open indefinitely, so it is important that Congress act immediately. If Congress fails to act, companies will continue to face regulatory uncertainty, which creates hesitancy in securing financing for constructing LNG terminals, plus nations with near-term energy needs will look elsewhere.

Potential geopolitical benefits such as reducing the oppressive influence of other exporters like Russia and Iran, while simultaneously strengthening ties with our allies, could be ultimately jeopardized.

Some of my colleagues are concerned that increased LNG exports will not really help our allies in Europe, but that is simply not true. Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is sent, increasing the supply and competition in the international market will provide global consumers with greater choice and, most importantly, increased leverage when negotiating LNG pricing contracts.

In fact, by no longer importing such large amounts of LNG, the U.S. has already indirectly helped our European allies. With the passage of this legislation, even more LNG will be free to go to places that need it most.

Equally important, if we delay, domestic economic benefits may also fail to materialize, specifically the opportunity to create some 45,000 jobs by 2018 and increase hardworking taxpayer salaries by $1 billion over 6 years. This is a win for manufacturing, especially those who make drilling equipment pipeline components, not to mention the refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors.

For these reasons, Congress must pass H.R. 351. To date, DOE has issued a final decision on only five of the 38 pending LNG export applications received since 2010. This is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to help bring certainty to DOE's approval process, create jobs, help maximize American energy production, and help our allies abroad by voting for this important legislation.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 48, the rule for H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act.

During the 113th Congress, identical legislation to H.R. 351 passed the House of Representatives as H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Long before its passage, the bill moved through the entire legislative process at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This process included a hearing as well as an eventual markup at the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. A subsequent full committee markup followed, and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar.

The House Committee on Rules then established H. Res. 636, the rule for consideration of H.R. 6. After that rule was adopted, the legislation was debated, amended, and ultimately passed the House of Representatives with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. The President did not issue a veto threat.

The energy renaissance that has swept across America over the last years has transformed the United States from an increasingly energy dependent Nation--beholden to the whims of OPEC--to our current position as the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world.

This transformation has provided us with a historic and unprecedented opportunity not just to bolster our economy, but to also fully leverage our energy abundance on the international stage by selling a portion of our natural gas abroad.

Through this abundance of natural gas, America has an opportunity to significantly affect geopolitics if we enact smart policies. It could-- and should--be a game changer.

Allowing the export of liquefied natural gas, for instance, will create significant American jobs and wealth for the United States, enhance our energy security, and provide a reliable source of fuel to our allies, some of whom depend on the mood of Vladimir Putin to meet their energy needs.

Unfortunately, our policies have not kept pace with the industry's development. Producers seeking to export LNG face a constantly changing approval process which costs millions of dollars and takes years to navigate.

Not only does this undermine regulatory certainty, but with dozens of projects seeking approval, Washington is making it difficult for businesses to make the investment decisions needed to take advantage of this abundant resource. This delays job creation here at home and reduces our ability to positively influence global politics abroad.

My bill, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, aims to address this growing problem by cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and implementing a deadline on the Department of Energy to issue a final decision on LNG applications.

Given the amount of time that has already passed since many of the LNG export applications have been filed and their dockets closed, there is no more information to consider and no reason for DOE not to adhere to a deadline.

There is very real risk to inactivity. If Washington waits too long to move forward with export licenses, other countries with their own natural gas resources--Canada, Qatar, and Australia, to name three-- will step in to meet the demand. Our competitive advantage, along with the opportunity to create more domestic energy jobs and serve as a check on Russia, will be lost.

Numerous studies have found that LNG exports will create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, many of them in manufacturing, including the refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors. ICF International estimates that these jobs will occur across the entire value chain, translating into roughly $1 billion in new wages for American workers over a 6-year period.

Export terminals will also generate millions of dollars in new tax revenue for Federal, State, and local governments, while increasing our GDP and lowering the trade deficit.

It is worth noting that this won't come at the expense of domestic consumers. The U.S. Energy Information Administration stressed that it expects increased overseas demand for LNG will be met by the development of new resources.

In fact, the DOE has concluded that each of the different export scenarios considered ``are welfare improving for U.S. consumers'' and would result in ``an increase in U.S. households' real income.''

The recent turbulence in Eastern Europe--and throughout the Middle East--has shown all too clearly that energy can be used as a geopolitical tool. Adding a new and reliable source of natural gas onto the world market will diversify our allies' energy sources and greatly reduce their vulnerability to a single monopolistic supplier.

I am proud to author this legislation. It is a job creator. It helps America in

leveraging the geopolitical stage across the globe. We have seen enough delay. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the Chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, right now, today, about 50 percent of Russia's revenue comes from taxes on oil and gas. About 80 percent of that resource goes through the Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are under tremendous pressure, as are other European allies, by the Russians.

Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is shipped, increasing supply and competition in the global marketplace will help provide international consumers with greater choice.

In fact, a representative of the U.S. State Department made a similar statement on the benefits of U.S. natural gas exports at a January 8, 2015, Atlantic Council forum. This is from the State Department:

Now, where the gas will go doesn't matter. The fact that we

have approved exports of natural gas has already had an

impact on Europe.

Just the fact that America is getting into the game has put the Russians on notice that our friends and allies and people that they are currently putting under pressure--the Ukrainians and others--are going to have a choice, and it is going to make a different conversation happen at the table.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that helped clarify it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hardworking people of eastern and southeastern Ohio to share their stories since they began experiencing President Obama's health care law.

I have heard from many of those I represent who have seen an increase in their health care premiums, lost their doctors, and were forced out of the plans that they liked, even after they were told by President Obama that if

they liked their health plan they could keep it.

Alice of Dennison, Ohio, contacted my office and let me know that her insurance premium went from $235 to $520 a month, more than doubling. Alice told me that she goes to bed at night wondering how she will pay for the increased premiums. But Alice isn't alone. Her story is just one of the many stories from Ohio I have received.

We must continue to fight this misguided law and work to return control and choice of health care to the American people. Hardworking Americans deserve better than ObamaCare.