Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014.

This much-needed legislation will finally start to shed light for the American people on the underlying science that the EPA uses to justify their new rules and regulations. Not only would the EPA have to share the evidence they are using or the science they are using on the rules, but they would have to specify the need for the rule. But most importantly, the results of the EPA's analysis would have to provide enough information so that the public can independently reproduce the results so that we can check the EPA's work.

As I travel up and down my district visiting small, medium, and large manufacturing companies, I hear a common theme over and over again. At almost every stop these companies are telling me they are dealing with new or proposed rules coming out of the EPA. Whether it is a mom-and- pop brick manufacturing company, an international steel manufacturing company, or a coal-fired power plant, they are all dealing with new and very costly new EPA rules. If the EPA and environmentalists get their way, some of these companies will simply go out of business because the rules are unattainable and they apparently don't really move the needle toward improvements in public health.

I say ``apparently'' because we don't have all the facts and data that the EPA is using to justify these new rules, and we can't validate and verify what they are telling the public.

Thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs are at risk because of these proposed and pending rules. We owe it to these hardworking

men and women to share the science with the public so we can verify what the EPA is saying before they lose their jobs over unverified studies.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act.

This important legislation will unleash America's energy potential, create thousands of jobs, and stop the administration from destroying tens of thousands of jobs. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Representative Lamborn and I sponsored the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act, which is a portion of this package. This specific title of the bill stops the administration's efforts to virtually eliminate underground mining in the Eastern United States, cost thousands of jobs, and lead to skyrocketing energy costs for all Americans.

Since President Obama came into office, his Department of the Interior has tried to rewrite the stream buffer zone rule. The President's preferred rule would cost at least 7,000 direct jobs and thousands more indirect jobs. This estimate is the administration's own estimate, and it could potentially be much worse.

The President's rewrite of the rule has been ongoing now for 5 years, has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by Chairman Hastings and the House Natural Resources Committee.

As we have seen across the administration, the Interior Department has largely refused to turn over documents and recordings to the committee in a clear violation of the House's oversight authority. The administration is clearly holding back information that they know would be damaging to their efforts.

The House has previously passed this legislation on two separate occasions, both times on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, the Senate has refused to even consider the legislation either time.

I specifically want to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Lamborn for their leadership on this issue. Without their investigation of the Department on this rulemaking process, we might not have been able to stop it from going forward. However, we will continue our oversight and make sure that the Department doesn't try to push through a rule in their final 2 years.

Again, I thank the chairman for his hard work not only this particular title of H.R. 2, but for his work and leadership on the entire package. This legislation will be a big step forward toward energy independence and security, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.

I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. The President took an important step in his address to the Nation last week. He said that he is committed to ``degrading and destroying'' ISIL. The President should be commended for evolving from his position last month when he indicated that he didn't think ISIL posed much of a threat to America.

Madam Speaker, much, much more must be done. I am concerned that the President isn't fully listening to his military leaders. Reports have emerged indicating that President Obama did not choose to use the recommendations that our military leaders gave him.

Specifically, it has been reported that General Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, advised the President to send in some Special Operations Forces to advise and assist Iraqi Army units while fighting the militants.

Just today, at a Senate hearing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey said that the reality of the threat of ISIL might make the hands-off approach that the President is pursuing insufficient to deal with the threat. It is troubling when a Commander in Chief with no military experience chooses to ignore the advice of his military leaders.

On one hand, Secretary Hagel has said that we are at war with ISIL. On the other hand, it appears as if the President may be settling for what may be less than overwhelming force in confronting an enemy that he says

should be destroyed because of the threat it poses.

Again, it was encouraging to see President Obama acknowledge ISIL as the threat that they are to Americans, to our homeland, and our friend and allies; however, I hope, when this authorization expires in December, that President Obama will take the steps that his military leaders propose that will actually accomplish the President's goal of degrading and destroying ISIL.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to have introduced H.R. 2819, legislation that would name the post office at 275 Front Street in Marietta, Ohio, the Veterans Memorial Post Office.

I want to thank all of my colleagues in the Ohio delegation for their support of this legislation.

In my view, veterans are the one segment of our society that most deserves our sincere gratitude and assistance. I am eternally grateful to the brave men and women who have served our country in the past and for those who still serve her today. While this represents a small recognition of our veterans, dedicating the Marietta Post Office pays tribute to America's heroes and serves as a reminder of their great sacrifices in defense of our freedoms.

In addition to a debt of gratitude, our veterans and their families deserve the care and the benefits and the services they were promised and have earned. It is particularly important that we keep our veterans at the forefront of our minds as so many return home from combat, some returning home with wounds that just a few short years ago they might not have survived. We have a responsibility to ensure that all veterans are receiving the very best of care from the VA, as well as all the assistance necessary for a successful transition back to civilian life.

I thank you for the time, Madam Speaker, to speak on this important measure, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Dr. Wenstrup. This much-needed amendment will blunt the job losses that are coming to the hardworking men and women who are currently working to try and clean up that Atomic Energy Commission plant there in Piketon.

I understand the committee's attempts, and I appreciate the committee's attempts. Unfortunately, the $15 million that they have put in this appropriation is still not enough to stop the hundreds of layoffs that will come if nothing more is done, nor is it enough to keep this critical cleanup project on track so that the property can be developed to create more jobs to replace the ones that are going to be lost anyway.

That is why this amendment is so necessary. It reroutes money from renewable and overhead costs to pay for the cleanup work that we promised to the Piketon, Ohio, folks; and we ought to stay with that. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3548, the Improving Trauma Care Act of 2014, bipartisan legislation I am proud to have sponsored with the support and counsel of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I commend the committee staff for their hard work to move this legislation forward through markup at the subcommittee and full committee levels and to steer it to the House floor today.

This simple but important bill seeks to refine inconsistent definitions of what constitutes ``trauma'' as outlined in the United States Code.

Common sense would certainly point to many burn injuries as a type of trauma, but the U.S. Code doesn't recognizes them as such. The failure to incorporate the full range of traumatic injuries in the description of ``trauma,'' including burns, can result in gaps in coverage and in provisions of care throughout the care system. By modernizing this term as federally defined, Congress can ensure that it accurately reflects the medical realities of trauma and protects access to the provision of trauma care.

There are important gains to be made in the field of traumatic medicine by the further integration of care and by finding synergies between burn and trauma centers. This has been all too evident in efforts to save lives after national tragedies, such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. The importance of strengthening our Nation's burn care infrastructure can't be stressed enough. Inadequacy and inconsistency in the U.S. Code around the classification of burns further compound serious shortfalls in our Nation's traumatic emergency medical care system.

Traumatic injury is the leading cause of death for those under age 44, but getting a victim of trauma to a level 1 or 2 trauma center within the first golden hour can make all of the difference. However, 45 million Americans do not have access to a level 1 or 2 trauma center within an hour's travel.

I applaud the efforts of my colleague Dr. Burgess to reauthorize trauma programs and improve this system with his bill H.R. 4080, which I am also proud to support. I thank him for his endorsement of H.R. 3548, and I am grateful for his efforts to improve trauma care more broadly.

In addition, this legislation has the strong support of a broad coalition of the major medical societies and associations representing the trauma care community, including: the American Burn Association, the American College of Surgeons, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, the American Trauma Society, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Trauma Center Association of America, and America's Essential Hospitals.

I want to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Pitts for their hard work in promoting the Improving Trauma Care Act of 2014.

I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense legislation that prevents gaps in coverage and improves the provision of trauma care, and I strongly encourage a ``yes'' vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of S. 1044, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act, legislation that was introduced by Senator Rob Portman and that recently passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

I introduced companion legislation both in this session of Congress and the 112th session. In fact, the House passed my legislation on January 24, 2012, by a vote of 386-26, but, unfortunately, the Senate failed to act in 2012.

However, on the eve of the 70th anniversary of D-day this year, the Senate came around and passed this legislation. Once we pass this bill today, it will go on to the President's desk, and I hope he wastes no time in signing it into law.

This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to install at the World War II Memorial a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on the morning of the D-day invasion. This prayer, which has been entitled ``Let Our Hearts Be Stout,'' gave solace, comfort, and

strength to our Nation and our brave warriors as we fought against tyranny and oppression.

The memorial was built to honor the 16 million who served in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II, as well as the more than 400,000 who died during the war.

Prior to introducing the legislation in 2011, I spoke to many World War II veterans in Ohio and asked them if they thought putting this prayer on the memorial would be appropriate. The answer was a resounding ``yes.''

It seems to me that if the remaining veterans of World War II are supportive of the prayer being added, we as a Nation should honor that request.

You don't have to take my word for it, though, because 2 years ago, Poppy Fowler, a constituent of mine, testified before the House Natural Resources Committee in favor of this legislation. Poppy is now 90 years young, and served 3 years, 10 days, 1 hour, and 10 minutes in the United States Navy during World War II. He flew 35 missions in Air Group 15 on an SB2C Helldiver as both a rear gunner and photographer.

I had the pleasure of escorting Poppy on an Honor Flight trip to visit the World War II Memorial, and he and I became friends. Here is a brief excerpt of Poppy's testimony at that hearing:

I feel, with no doubt, that it would be appropriate that

this prayer be inscribed in some manner at the World War II

Memorial. Those reading this prayer will be able to recall

the sacrifices made by our military, also those on the home

front.

This prayer came at a perilous time, yet it was answered in

victory at a dear cost of lives.

Today, this prayer can pertain to any military action.

Under present circumstances, it is also appropriate.

I don't think anyone in this body could be more succinct and articulate than Mr. Fowler.

Like Poppy, I also have no doubt that the prayer should be included among the tributes to the Greatest Generation memorialized on the National Mall.

It is vitally important that the President signs this legislation as quickly as possible because time is of the essence. As some may know, there is estimated to be just over 1.5 million World War II veterans still living. Furthermore, it is estimated that roughly 600 World War II vets are dying every day.

In other words, each week that goes by that this legislation does not become law, approximately 4,000 more World War II vets will have passed away without seeing this prayer added to their memorial.

I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Bishop for their hard work and efforts to get to where we are today. They have been champions of this legislation over the past 3 years, and we wouldn't be here without their help.

I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation and to take this opportunity to honor the Greatest Generation by adding this prayer to the World War II Memorial.

Madam Speaker, today, I would like to recognize and thank a constituent of mine from Patriot, Ohio--Ms. Gail DeGarmo.

Ms. DeGarmo is an employee of Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative, and she recently traveled to Honduras as a volunteer for the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association International Foundation.

While on the island of Roatan, she taught local co-op employees how to install, set up, operate, and maintain their newly-acquired automated metering information system. This will enable them to operate and use the Command Center software, which serves about 13,000 customers.

Ms. DeGarmo's volunteer efforts supported the Smart Grid Alliance for the Americas' goal to provide technical assistance in smart grid technology applications to cooperative, municipal, and other small electric distribution utilities in Latin America.

Ms. DeGarmo's effort will help the alliance's project to improve energy efficiency, integrate renewable generation, and, most importantly, improve access to electricity for underserved communities in Latin America.

Thank you, Ms. DeGarmo, for your hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring attention to a serious

and heartbreaking situation in Israel, the kidnapping of three teenage boys--Gilad Shaar; Eyal Yifrach; and Naftali Frenkel, who is a dual Israeli-American citizen.

They were last seen near the West Bank city of Hebron, and it is strongly believed that Hamas is responsible for their abduction. My prayers go out to their families and for their safe return.

Secretary Kerry has called this a despicable act of terrorism and has offered America's full support. We must stand behind Israel's efforts to bring them home and hold accountable those involved.

However, this act of terrorism further demonstrates why America should not be providing foreign aid for the unity government between Hamas and Fatah. Secretary Kerry reiterated America's position that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

It is clear American tax dollars are not being used to promote peace. It is time to stop funding terrorism aimed at one of America's closest allies.

Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2824, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act, legislation that I introduced with my friend and colleague, Congressman Doug Lamborn.

This important legislation addresses the administration's flawed, waste of taxpayer money, and job-killing rewrite of the Stream Buffer Zone Rule.

Immediately upon taking over in 2009, the administration began their efforts to rewrite the Stream Buffer Zone Rule, even though a new rule that took 5 years to codify had just been finished in 2008.

From the beginning, the Office of Surface Mining and the Department of the Interior fumbled the ball, and it has been a train wreck and lack of leadership over the past 5 years.

Nearly $10 million of taxpayer money has been wasted by the administration in their attempts to destroy thousands of direct and indirect jobs and cause electricity prices to skyrocket.

We know from the administration's own estimates that their preferred rule would cost 7,000 direct coal jobs and thousands more indirect jobs, not to mention that States like mine in Ohio would see their electricity prices skyrocket thanks to increased coal prices.

We also know, from the whistleblower contractors that worked on the rule, that the political appointees in the Office of Surface Mining tried to cover up these job loss numbers because they knew how politically damaging they would be in the runup to the 2012 election year.

In fact, a political appointee threatened the contractors that there ``would be consequences'' if the contractor refused to change the numbers.

Furthermore, a recent report from the inspector general at the Department of the Interior confirmed these findings and even quoted the President-appointed and Senate-approved Director of OSM, saying that we need to ``fix the job loss numbers.''

Is this the type of good government that the American people expect of our leadership, a rulemaking process that sees political appointees threatening contractors and cooking the books to get a preferred outcome?

Under the leadership of Chairman Doc Hastings, the Natural Resources Committee has been aggressively investigating the malfeasance and flawed rewrite of this rule. In a serious threat to the separation of powers spelled out in the Constitution, the administration has largely ignored requests and subpoenas for relevant documents.

This is just another example of a Presidency and administration ignoring the will of the people and abusing power.

That is why this legislation is so important, Mr. Chairman. It will ensure that my constituents in eastern and southeastern Ohio, along with other hardworking Americans employed by the coal industry all across the country, can keep their jobs and continue to mine and use the coal that powers our manufacturing engine here in America.

It directs the States to implement the 2008 rule, a rule that had tens of thousands of comments and was thoroughly vetted before being thrown aside by the incoming administration.

After 5 years, the States would be asked to report back with a description in detail of any proposed changes that should be made to the rule.

This legislation ensures that the States that are directly impacted by the proposed rule would have an actual say-so in the process, instead of a topdown approach from the Office of Surface Mining.

Despite what some may say, it does not stop the administration from protecting waterways or the environment.

Mr. Chairman, the rewrite of this rule has cost the taxpayers nearly $10 million and threatens to shut down underground coal mining in America, killing thousands of jobs in the process.

I thank Chairman Hastings and Congressman Lamborn for their leadership on this important issue, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, this is simple. There are two competing views on the floor right now about the future of America.

One side believes that the key to America remaining the leader of the free world starts with a robust American economy, led by a strong and stable energy market; an America that then leverages a healthy economy and a strong energy market to help allies across the globe like Ukraine, Japan, and others; an America that can go toe-to-toe with the Russians as they leverage their energy resources to try and achieve their political ambitions; an America that creates energy jobs here at home in a way that balances the dual needs of a vibrant economy and a healthy environment.

Now, that other competing view would rather see American manufacturers and hardworking middle class families pay more for their electricity.

Mr. Speaker, that is not fair. The other side talks a big game about being for an all-of-the-above energy policy, but at every turn, it tries to shut down our fossil fuel production and use.

The other side would rather shut down our cheapest and most reliable form of energy and the thousands of jobs that go with it, in favor of taxpayer-subsidized windmills to heat our homes on cold days like today.

The other side's apparent unwillingness to leverage America's energy abundance to influence geopolitics is unwise. America's rivals and adversaries are watching.

Mr. Speaker, like I said, this is simple. What side of the coin do we want to stand on? The one that shoots ourself in the foot or the one that embraces our God-given energy advantage and leads?

To me, the choice is clear. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this motion and to vote for final passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support for this rule which will govern debate on important legislation that my colleague, Doug Lamborn, and I have introduced.

This legislation, the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America, would stop the administration from destroying thousands of direct and indirect coal mining jobs and stop the price of electricity in places like Ohio from skyrocketing.

Since the early days of this administration, Mr. Speaker, the Office of Surface Mining at the Department of the Interior has been trying to rewrite a 2008 coal mining rule. This rewrite has been fraught with mismanagement, waste of taxpayer dollars, intimidation of contractors by OSM employees towards the contractors working on the rule, and even the Director of OSM demanding that the contractors change the job loss estimates because it would look bad politically for the administration. But, look, don't take my word for it. You can go out and read the Department's own inspector general's report that highlights the administration's problems rewriting this rule.

This legislation would put an end to this nonsense and implement the 2008 rule. It would save taxpayers millions of dollars that are being wasted on this frivolous rewrite. It also would protect the thousands of direct jobs that the administration admitted would be destroyed by this rule and thousands more indirect jobs that would also be lost.

In eastern and southeastern Ohio, my constituents are the ones mining the coal that powers the economic engine in the Midwest, not to mention that America gets over 40 percent of its energy from coal, the State of Ohio gets over 80 percent of its energy from coal. This rule would put not only those jobs at risk, but also cause electricity prices to skyrocket and endanger the low electricity rates that manufacturing in this country relies on to keep moving forward.

The rule from the Department must be stopped in order to protect hardworking coal miners across America and to stop the waste of taxpayer dollars by the Department of the Interior. I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule today and to support this legislation when it comes to the floor.

Madam Speaker, welcome to President Obama's America: where labor force participation rates are the lowest since 1978; where good-paying jobs are scarce; where many health insurance premiums are skyrocketing or being canceled; where jobs bills sent to the Senate collect dust on Harry Reid's desk; where the State Department concluded that the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline poses little environmental risk, yet the President has not approved it; where yesterday the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that ObamaCare will have substantially larger negative effects on the economy than anticipated.

The CBO projects the number of full-time workers to fall by 2.3 million, while increasing financial burdens on our children and grandchildren.

I urge the President: use that pen to approve House-passed jobs bills; use that phone to work with Congress, and let's work together to relieve the burden that so many of your policies have placed on the backs of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, while home for Christmas, I reflected on the economic challenges America faces and the parallels today's economy has with the one Ronald Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter in 1981. Both were characterized by high unemployment and low labor-force participation.

I will paraphrase some of what President Reagan said in first Inaugural address:

Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment,

causing human misery and personal indignity. Those who do

work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system

which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from

maintaining full productivity.

For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging

our future and our children's future for the temporary

convenience of present.

By the end of Ronald Reagan's Presidency, America's unemployment rate was 5.4 percent and our economy was the envy of the world. It is time we learn from history. As President Reagan said, Government is the problem. Individuals, free from the heavy hand of Big Government to pursue their dreams, they create prosperity. It is time we revisit the simple, sacred truth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2279.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment to H.R. 2279, the Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations, or REDO, Act of 2013, which also includes my legislation, H.R. 2226, the Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act, and Mr. Latta's bill, H.R. 2318, the Federal Facility Accountability Act of 2013.

Our goal with all three of these bills is to modernize some of the environmental laws that we oversee and make sure that the States are playing a significant role in implementing them. To do that, we began this Congress with a hearing on the role of the States in protecting the environment. State environmental protection officials shared their experience and expertise with us and helped us better understand the complex partnership between the States and the Federal Government as States implement Federal laws, such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and the EPA implements the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA or Superfund law, and the relation to State environmental protection laws.

Today we consider three bills that are a logical outgrowth of that discussion. The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations, or REDO, Act of 2013 would give EPA flexibility by correcting two arbitrary action deadlines that were written into the Solid Waste Disposal Act and CERCLA many years ago.

RCRA contains a mandate that EPA review and, if necessary, revise all RCRA regulations every 3 years. This deadline is unnecessary and unworkable in the face of the significant number of regulations that currently exist under RCRA.

The bill would allow the Administrator to review and, if necessary, revise regulations as she thinks appropriate. The bill would also lift an action deadline in CERCLA requiring EPA to identify, prior to 1984, classes of facilities for which to develop financial assurance regulations.

More than 30 years passed without action from the EPA to promulgate regulations regarding financial assurance. A lawsuit and court order finally prompted the EPA action just a few years ago.

In the meantime the States and other Federal agencies have long since acted, putting in place strong financial assurance requirements of their own. That is why the bill also provides that if EPA does get around to establishing Federal financial assurance regulations, the States requirements would not be preempted.

The bill also requires the EPA to gather information regarding the financial assurance programs of States and other Federal agencies and report to Congress regarding whether there is a need for additional regulations by the EPA.

Should the EPA determine there is a need for additional requirements, the bill ensures compliance with existing State or Federal requirements will count towards compliance with EPA's requirements.

The Federal Facility Accountability Act would bring the CERCLA waiver of sovereign immunity into conformity with the Solid Waste Disposal Act, and for that matter the Clean Air Act, by requiring that all Federal Superfund sites comply with the same State laws and regulations as a private entity. This is not a new concept.

Legislation has been introduced previously by my friends across the aisle to ensure that Federal agencies comply with all Federal and State environmental laws, including CERCLA.

In fact, the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1991 had the same goal: to make Federal facilities subject to all the same substantive and procedural requirements, including enforcement requirements and sanctions that State and local governments and private companies meet.

The Federal Facility Accountability Act applies the same policy to Federal facilities under CERCLA that already applies to Federal facilities under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Some argue that if this bill becomes law it will change Federal agencies' spending by forcing them to comply with State laws and that CERCLA is different because it is retroactive and applies to prior actions of the Federal Government.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act often applies to past conduct. That's why there is a provision for ``corrective measures.'' In fact, the EPA has issued multiple guidance documents that describe how Federal agencies should harmonize RCRA and CERCLA with respect to cleanups of hazardous waste.

Past conduct, future conduct--the fairness principle is the same. The basic question is whether Federal agencies should comply with State environmental protection laws just as private companies and State and local agencies must do.

My bill, the Federal and State Partnership for Environment Protection Act, does exactly what the title implies and would go a long way toward making the States partners with the EPA in cleaning up hazardous waste sites.

CERCLA is implemented by the EPA, but often States are in the best position to understand the sites in their State. This bill would allow States to play a larger role in the CERCLA process in several ways. The bill would allow States to list a site that it believes needs to be on the National Priorities List every 5 years and would provide transparency to the States if they suggest a site for listing.

The bill would also allow States to be consulted before the EPA selects a remedial action.

States are on the front lines and understand at the ground level how to prioritize environmental actions within their States.

They often come up with innovative solutions that better fit the local problem. We heard examples of that in our hearing on the Role of the States in Protecting the Environment.

CERCLA is a key example of a statute passed more than 30 years ago that we can now update and strengthen the Federal-State partnership to get sites cleaned up.

Removing barriers to job creation imposed by Federal Government is a cornerstone in our governing philosophy. Cory Gardner, Bob Latta and I produced bills to ensure that the Federal Government reduces unnecessary red tape, the barriers to job creation, while still keeping our environment healthy. These important bills aim to improve the Federal and State relationship when dealing with hazardous waste.

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

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives.

Washington, DC, January 8, 2014.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Upton, I am writing with respect to H.R.

2279, the ``Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of

2013.''

As you know, H.R. 2279 contains provisions within the

Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result

of your having consulted with the Committee and in order to

expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 2279, the

Committee on the Judiciary will not assert a jurisdictional

claim over this bill by seeking a sequential referral.

However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding and

agreement that doing so will in no way diminish or alter the

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect

to the appointment of conferees or to any future

jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in

the bill or similar legislation.

I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 2279, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration of H.R. 2279.

Sincerely,

Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Mr. Chairman, I have to respond, I think, briefly. I appreciate the ranking member's passion in addressing these issues, but we need to clear up what some of the facts actually are.

CBO has scored these bills and has come back and said that there are no significant cost increases associated with these. Furthermore, in regards to meeting with the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, that meeting did occur, and the concerns that they raised were mainly around criminal liabilities for Federal employees, and that was addressed in the final legislation. So I'm not sure why we are still debating those issues.

At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud at this point to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), our chairman.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of quick points of clarification.

My friend and colleague Mr. Tonko and I agree on many things, and we have a history of having worked together to hold the EPA to commonsense rules, and I appreciate that, but I need to clarify just a couple of quick things that my colleague mentioned.

From the Environmental Council of the States, I have before me a letter that I would like to enter into the Record stating that the Environmental Council of the States is writing to support many of the concepts included in this legislation, on all three pieces of this legislation.

And the other organization, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, they don't take positions on legislation; so no matter what the piece of legislation would be, if you call them, they are not going to take a position on it one way or another. That does not mean that they do not support this, but they simply don't take positions.

I wanted to make those clarifications for the Record.

I reserve the balance of my time.

ECOS, The Environmental

Council of the States,

Washington, DC, June 18, 2013.

Re ``CERCLA Bills'' H.R.s 2226, 2318, 2279

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Henry Waxman,

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen: The Environmental Council of the States

(ECOS) is writing to support many of the concepts included in

H.R. 2226 The Federal and State Partnership for Environmental

Protection Act of 2013, H.R. 2318 The Federal Facility

Accountability Act of 2013 H.R. 2279, and The Reducing

Excessive Deadline Obligations Act of 2013.

As stated in our testimony at your hearing on May 17, ECOS

supports the expansion of ``consultation with states'' as

described in the bills. ECOS especially acknowledges that the

bills directly address concerns expressed by the States in

our ECOS Resolution on federal facilities operations under

RCRA and CERCLA (attached; see especially the bolded items).

ECOS is a non-partisan, non-profit organization of the

state environmental agencies and their leaders, who are our

members.

We ask that you include this letter in the record on this

matter. If there is anything else that ECOS can do to assist

you in this matter, please do not hesitate to ask.

Regards,

R. Steven Brown,

Executive Director.

Attachment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

In closing, I want to go back and revisit just briefly some of the cost implications or the allegations of cost implications of today's legislation that we are considering.

CBO carefully analyzed all three of the bills that we are considering as part of H.R. 2279 today, and here is what they said:

CBO estimates that, in some cases, implementing this

legislation could affect the pace of discretionary spending

if priorities for cleanup activities change. However, CBO

expects that total costs to fulfill Federal responsibilities

under CERCLA would be little changed under this legislation.

That was directly from the CBO score for H.R. 2226.

Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that removing

the current requirement to review certain recommendations

every 3 years would reduce administrative costs. However,

some of those savings in administrative expenses would be

offset by spending on the new requirement to report to the

Congress any financial responsibility requirements. CBO

estimates that, on balance, implementing this legislation

would not have a significant net impact on spending that is

subject to appropriation over the 2014-2018 period. Enacting

H.R. 2279 would not affect direct spending or revenues.

That was directly from the CBO score for H.R. 2279.

CBO estimates that enacting this legislation could increase the pace of discretionary spending to the extent that Federal agencies accelerate spending

related to cleanup activities or pay additional fines and penalties imposed by the States. However, CBO expects that aggregate, long-term costs to fulfill Federal responsibilities under CERCLA would be little changed under the legislation.

In addition, H.R. 2318 could increase direct spending to the extent that fines and penalties were paid from the Treasury's Judgment Fund. However, CBO expects that any incremental spending from that fund would probably be insignificant. CBO estimates that any additional direct spending over the 2014-2023 period would be insignificant.

CBO goes on to say:

Enacting this legislation would not fundamentally change

the Federal Government's responsibility to comply with

CERCLA. According to the latest financial report of the

United States, the Federal Government's current environmental

remediation and waste disposal liabilities exceed $300

billion (under all environmental laws). Under current law,

Federal agencies, in particular the Departments of Defense

and Energy, currently spend billions of dollars each year

conducting cleanup activities under CERCLA, including

reimbursements to State agencies for related services they

provide. Based on information from Federal agencies and

industry representatives, CBO expects that enacting this

legislation could induce Federal agencies to accelerate their

compliance activities at some facilities--possibly changing

the timing of funding requests for certain projects. As a

result, H.R. 2318 might lead to greater compliance costs for

Federal facilities for the years immediately following

enactment, but the total long-term cost of compliance would

not change substantially.

I just wanted to make that point for the record.

Finally, I want to urge my colleagues not to be misled by my colleague's argument that this bill somehow prevents the EPA from enacting financial assurance requirements. It simply does not. More than 30 years passed before EPA complied with the requirements of CERCLA and started the process of developing financial assurance requirements. All this bill does is require the EPA to acknowledge the body of law developed by the States and other Federal agencies in the more than 30 years since the EPA has failed to act.

This legislation does not limit EPA from establishing Federal CERCLA financial responsibility requirements or from setting a minimum level of financial assurance that is required. H.R. 2279 merely ensures that existing State and Federal requirements can be used to meet those requirements where appropriate and ensures that existing State protections that may already exceed a new Federal minimum requirement will not be automatically voided.

The purpose of the provision in the bill requiring the EPA to report to Congress before new CERCLA financial responsibility requirements are enacted is to make sure that there is a legitimate need for new requirements. It does not prevent the EPA from promulgating new requirements if they are necessary.

My colleague argues that the bill is based on a false premise that States are implementing adequate financial assurance requirements. The bill does not prejudge State financial assurance requirements. What the bill does is require the EPA to analyze the existing financial assurance requirements, and it directs the EPA to ``fill the gap'' left by financial assurance regulations developed by the States or other Federal agencies. But make no mistake, if there is a regulatory gap and the EPA believes that gap needs to be filled, the EPA is free to enact regulations.

The purpose of financial assurance under 108(b) of CERCLA was to prevent the creation of new Superfund sites. The bill provides a mechanism for gathering information to decide whether the existing State and Federal financial assurance requirements are adequate to protect the Federal Government from incurring response costs under

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes the provision that would allow States to list a site on the National Priorities List once every 5 years.

States have a great deal of experience and expertise in cleaning up sites contaminated by hazardous wastes, and States are often in a better position to understand the realities of site cleanup in their States and to understand the local or regional issues affecting the cleanup, but there are times when it would be better addressed by the EPA under CERCLA, and there would be a significant delay in the listing process. As a result, the bill also allows a State to designate a site that meets the criteria for listing to the National Priorities List once every 5 years.

CERCLA currently permits States to list a site on the National Priorities List only once. States have taken to calling this their ``silver bullet.'' Using the silver bullet fast-tracks the listing of a site on the NPL and allows States to avoid the often lengthy listing process. Some States have already used their silver bullet, while others hold onto it and wait for a site that it believes would be better addressed by the EPA under CERCLA.

My colleague indicated in a Dear Colleague letter she circulated earlier today that the bill could result in the EPA's placing silver bullet projects at the bottom of the priorities list while still remaining in statutory compliance. While I appreciate my colleague's concern, this statement is both misleading and incorrect. The reality is that the EPA can place a silver bullet site--or any other site for that matter--at the bottom of its priority list at any time. This bill does not change the EPA's ability to prioritize sites for cleanup.

CERCLA is very process heavy, and States are often reluctant to wade into the drawn-out CERCLA process. They would rather clean up the sites themselves and avoid the stigma associated with having a Superfund site in their States. However, there are times when the only way to get a site cleaned up is to get it on the Superfund list. It is not an easy conclusion for States to come to, and States are not clamoring to list on the National Priorities List. So any argument that this bill would somehow result in an onslaught of new listings by the States would simply not play out.

One of the arguments against allowing States to list a site on the NPL is that it will somehow change the EPA's prioritization of how to spend its cleanup dollars. Just because a site is listed on the NPL does not mean that it will automatically receive funding or will somehow jump to the front of the line to receive cleanup dollars. Nothing in this bill changes the fact that the EPA sets the priority for sites to be cleaned up, and the EPA decides how to spend its cleanup dollars.

Furthermore, if a site is listed and is being cleaned up using Federal dollars, States are financially invested in making sure the cleanup is done right. States must contribute 10 percent of the overall remedial cost and all of the long-term operation and maintenance costs. With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, ironically, the EPA often pushes States to identify more sites that the EPA can put on the list so that the EPA can argue for more cleanup funding. The EPA incentivizes States to identify sites that meet the listing criteria by giving the States that identify sites more funds to do initial site assessments.

So the long and short of it is that the EPA wants more sites on the NPL, and the EPA wants the States to assist with identifying NPL sites, but the EPA does not want to relinquish control over the actual selection of the appropriate sites. We are trying to help fix that. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote from my colleagues on the Sinema amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am sure my colleague's amendment is well-intentioned, and in fact, I agree with him. I do not want to see an increase in litigation or a slowdown in the cleanup process or a decrease in funds available to clean up Superfund sites, but this amendment is not necessary because H.R. 2279 will not do any of those things.

CERCLA has been implemented for over 30 years, and the EPA has developed many practices and policies during that time. Some of the policies work and are consistently implemented, but many of the policies or practices are ineffective or are not consistently applied across the EPA regions. The EPA has done a good job of getting contaminated sites cleaned up under CERCLA, but that doesn't mean that we can't do better.

States are often in a better position to understand the local and regional issues affecting the cleanup, and States are well positioned to assist the EPA with all aspects of a response action. By ensuring that the States have a meaningful role in the Federal-State partnership under CERCLA and by making sure that Federal entities are on a level playing field with private entities engaged in CERCLA cleanups, we can do better and get more sites cleaned up faster.

My colleague's amendment implies that the purpose of this bill is to thwart cleanup efforts. On the contrary, the purpose of this legislation is to make sure sites get cleaned up in a

timely fashion by enhancing the existing role of the States, which are in the best position to assess the conditions at the site. The bill adjusts a top-down culture of CERCLA cleanups, but the bill does not alter the EPA's lead role in implementing CERCLA. States are already involved in the CERCLA process. Ensuring that States have a meaningful and substantial role will not slow down the cleanup process.

My colleague's amendment also implies that H.R. 2279 will reduce the number of funds available for cleanup. This is simply not the case. Congress decides on the amount of money to be appropriated to the EPA or to other Federal agencies for cleanups, and that is not changed by this legislation. It is up to the Federal agencies to prioritize how they spend the appropriated cleanup funds, and nothing in this bill changes the way money appropriated for cleanups is spent.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to say how much I respect my colleague, Mr. Tonko. We continue to work together, have worked together, and have had some successes in holding the EPA accountable to the law. I appreciate working with him.

But this amendment, although well-intentioned, is drafted in such a way that makes it impossibly vague. It is indeterminable whether a provision of the bill would increase the potential for litigation, and I continue to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tonko amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, our goal with this legislation is clear and straightforward. We want to modernize outdated environmental laws. The part of the bill that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) wrote makes modest, but important, improvements in environmental law. It allows the EPA to review and revise its solid waste disposal regulations as necessary.

In a hearing that we had, we asked a mayor from New Jersey, Would you rather clean up the trash or revise regulations? The mayor made it clear he would rather focus on getting the real work done instead of getting bogged down in governmental red tape.

The part of the bill written by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) says that Federal facilities should behave like anyone else in the State and meet the same natural resource protection requirements. Now, go figure: requiring the Federal Government to live under the same laws that the American people, the States and private-sector businesses have to live under. This is not a new concept. It is already the case under the Clean Air Act and RCRA. Let's just narrow the gap for the Superfund.

Finally, the portion that I wrote ensures that States have a place at the discussion table throughout the process that the EPA set for developing remediation plans.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' on final passage. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3588) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt fire hydrants from the prohibition on the use of lead pipes, fittings, fixtures, solder, and flux.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, many Members think that the suspension calendar is reserved for unimportant legislation. That is not the case today. It is reserved for bills that need no amendments and on which more than two- thirds of the House agrees. The Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 meets those two tests.

Sometimes when we budget our time, we ask ourselves, what should I work on first, the urgent or the important? H.R. 3588 is both urgent and important. It corrects a problem that first surfaced in October of this year, but which impacts all water utilities and firefighting units in the United States effective next month.

Water utilities have made it clear that they have two choices come January 4: fail to comply with Federal law, or leave gaps in critical fire hydrant service. No one should ever face that choice.

Here is the background. On January 4, 2011, the President signed into law the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. This law prohibits the manufacturing and installation of pipes, fittings, and fixtures that have lead content of greater than two-tenths of 1 percent, but it exempts specific items, including tub fillers and shower valves. There is also a general exemption for pipes, fittings, and fixtures where the water is not anticipated to be consumed.

The effective date of the law is January 4, 2014, the beginning of next month. I am told that when Congress wrote this law in 2010 and the President signed it in 2011, the issue of fire hydrants never entered the conversation--nor did the EPA suggest that fire hydrants were covered, at least not until October of this year, 10 short weeks before the law takes effect.

On October 22, the EPA announced that because fire hydrants are occasionally, but rarely, used in the stream of human water consumption, they are not exempt under the act. This means any hydrant manufactured or installed 33 days from now must have a lead content that meets the statutory standard.

The EPA's conclusion was based on a technical reading of the statute. Because the rule's announcement takes effect in early January, the solution is this brief but important legislation.

The worry for water utilities and firefighters is that hydrants can break without warning, often as a result of vehicular accidents. Winter is a busy time for replacing hydrants due, in part, to freezing road conditions. But neither water utilities nor firefighters can tolerate hydrants that are not certified to meet strict performance parameters. Hydrants must never get stuck closed and should never leak.

Why do hydrants contain tiny amounts of lead in the brass alloys in their valves and other parts? Because that alloy gives a cleaner fit that doesn't leak and doesn't get stuck. Confidence that a hydrant meets this standard is crucial.

Mr. Speaker, even though a couple of manufacturers claim to have developed hydrants that can meet today's lead-free standard, none of them claims independent verification of the lead-free standard, much less proof that the extreme low-lead hydrant will work for fire safety. If such hydrants are developed and later certified, communities will certainly always be free to choose them. But in the meantime, the 2010 law is unforgiving.

It does not allow exemptions for even the least frequent and briefest exposures to water that may pass through a hydrant. Communities that never allow any human consumption from a hydrant will be barred from installing hydrants that today are in stock and ready to meet emergency repairs.

The risk to human health from lead in water is from long-term exposure. That is why there is no scientific data showing health effects from people drinking water from hydrants. But there are documented times when firefighters have arrived on the emergency scene only to find the hydrant is out of service. This leads to tragedy we can and must avoid.

If shower valves and tub fillers should be exempt--and they are-- let's exempt hydrants so there are no gaps in fire safety. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3588.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further Members who wish to speak on this issue. If my good friend is prepared to summarize, I am prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to say thanks to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Tonko, for his support of this legislation. It may seem trivial to some; but trust me, it is not trivial to the many communities who are sitting on stockpiles, literally millions of dollars worth of current hydrant technology that would have to be replaced as a result, and that money just going down the tubes. I, too, urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3588.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.