Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the American Care Act. After seven years, the Republicans have released a plan that works to kick people off health insurance very quickly, increases out-of-pocket costs, and punishes older and sicker Americans. This is not the package that I envisioned.

Some of the key features of the Affordable Care Act that millions of people relied on would be gone under this proposal. Under the Affordable Care Act, states could expand Medicaid, but this proposal would freeze enrollment to expanded Medicaid at January 1, 2020. On that date, enrollees who drop off of Medicaid due to income changes would not be able to return to Medicaid coverage if they dropped on for one full month. The proposal also changes Medicaid funding to a per capita cap system which will lead to deep cuts to Medicaid in my home state of Texas. This punishes low-income Americans who would otherwise have no access to health insurance.

This piece of legislation forces Americans to pay more and get less. The average subsidy under the American Health Care Act will likely be about 60 percent of the average subsidy under current law. Deductibles and out-of-pocket spending in the individual market will have to increase due to the elimination of requirements that insurance plans cover a certain value. Americans will pay more for their

premiums, more for their care, more on out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles; all the while giving tax breaks to the wealthy and the tanning industry.

One amendment to this bill would repeal the Essential Health Benefits, the ten coverage rules set up by the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act required insurers to cover ten ``Essential Health Benefits'' from maternity care, mental health, and prescription drugs, to hospitalization and outpatient care. If this is repealed, comprehensive health insurance will become virtually unavailable in the individual market. This means that individuals with pre-existing conditions would not be protected. Younger and healthier people benefit, older and sicker people suffer.

Another amendment would allow states to waive out of the Affordable Care Act's ban on pre-existing conditions. However, Members of Congress and their staff would be protected from this provision and would be guaranteed coverage of pre-existing conditions.

Mr. Speaker, the public has spoken about this so-called ``replacement'' bill. People will live or die as a result of this legislation. The Republican leadership has rushed this bill to the floor without any consideration and I urge you all to consider its harmful effects. Your constituents are asking you to work with us to repair the Affordable Care Act. Work with us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to expose the cavalier disregard of environmental justice by our President during his first 100 days in office. In a short period of time, President Donald J. Trump made clear his agenda--anti-climate, anti-science, and anti- fact. The current administration has already taken significant steps, in lock-step with Congressional Republicans, to roll back and erase the progress made by the Obama Administration to protect our health, our public lands, and our precious environment.

Since taking office, President Trump has signed a number of executive orders reversing many of President Obama's environmental protections-- promoting cleaner air, cleaner water, and more sustainable energy production. The current White House is on a fast-track to derail decades of progress and set our nation back in the effort to combat climate change. The Clean Power Plan, which established comprehensive carbon emission standards and put the United States at the forefront of global environmental stewardship, was one of Trump's first targets. Instead of investing in technological and scientific innovation to make America a leader in greener, cleaner, sustainable energy production and consumption, President Trump has used his office to support the interests of corporations and interests in big oil and dirty coal on the backs of hardworking Americans.

Furthermore, the current administration has promulgated efforts to expand environmentally detrimental offshore drilling, allow the dumping of mining waste, and potentially force an exit from the 2015 Paris Agreement which brought the world's powers together in agreement to curb our collective carbon emissions.

The proposed budget goes even further in rejecting evidenced-based policy-making. From proposals to cripple the Environmental Protection Agency and zero-out critical programs at the Department of Energy like ARPA-E, this administration has abandoned our nation's effort to protect our planet and be a global leader.

Our administration's blatant disregard toward the health, economic, and national security risks associated with global climate change is shortsighted and will only further endanger Americans' health, security, and economic stability. While we will all suffer from the consequences of short-sighted federal policy, the heaviest burden is bound to fall on those already marginalized.

Minorities and working class families are already struggling to make ends meet, but study after study shows that they are the most vulnerable to environmental injustices. Subject to downwind and downstream pollution, children and families who are economically disadvantaged often lack the political voice to keep industries from polluting their communities and frequently bear the brunt of deregulatory regimes. Take Flint, Michigan for example, where young children have been exposed to toxic levels of lead from their drinking water. That is wrong and should be unheard of in the world's most powerful nation.

I urge my colleagues to consider the kind of country we want our children to live in. Where is the freedom in living in a community where there is no access to clean drinking water, or a city where children are forced to stay inside because the air is so polluted? We can and must do better, Mr. Speaker. The actions the President has set forth thus far do nothing to Make America Great Again; rather, his first one hundred days has only made America more polluted, less safe, and less secure.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand firm in their resolve to hold this and future administrations accountable to keeping our air clean, our water safe, and our environment sustainable for future generations. We have far too much to lose, Mr. Speaker, and future generations deserve our better judgement.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I recognize the significant and rich life of a beloved woman, Dorothy A. Smith. Mrs. Smith was a religious woman, whose dedication to the many churches and communities she was a part of in her life was outweighed only by her constant warmth.

She was born on August 11, 1930 in Meridian, Mississippi to her parents, Otis and Maggie. Dorothy was one of eight children. She married Edward in Meridian, MS on February 8, 1948 and they had 6 children from this union. She was educated in the public schools in New Orleans, LA. She worked for the Department of the Army for 40+ years when she retired as a Hospital Medical Records Specialist in 1993. She spent the last 15 years as a resident of Wylie, Texas. Dorothy was a member of Secondary Missionary Baptist Church in Junction City, KS, Fifth Street Baptist Church in Meridian, MS; Mt. Calvary Baptist Church, Farmersville, TX; and at the time of her death a member of Christ Unveiled Ministries, Garland, TX. Dorothy enjoyed working as a Deaconess, Trustee, Choir Member, and an Usher in the churches she attended. She spent most of her time encouraging Senior citizens and young people to have a better quality of life.

Dorothy was preceded in death by her loving husband, Edward. She will be remembered by her loving children Gloria Richardson of Manhattan, KS; Mae Smith of Bossier City, LA; Edward R. Smith, Jr., Cedar Hill, TX; Audray Lincoln (Charles) of Rowlett, TX; and James Foster, Sr. of Colorado Springs. She is also survived by 20 grandchildren, 63 great grandchildren, 2 great, great grandchildren, and a host of nieces, nephews, cousins, and many ``adopted kids'' of all ages. She was preceded in death by her son Joseph F. Smith; her daughter Lue E. Foster; her grandchildren Joseph Smith and Tiphanie Lincoln, her sisters Pauline Phillips and Josephine Smith, and her brother Robert Gordon.

Dorothy passed away peacefully on April 1, 2017, and will be missed dearly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate 100 years of women in Congress. Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman to serve in U.S. Congress in 1916.

Rankin was on the frontlines of the national suffrage fight and advocated relentlessly for the creation of a Committee on Woman Suffrage, serving on that committee once it was created. Casting an ``aye'' vote for the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Rankin was the only woman who ever voted to give women the right to vote.

Rankin is just one of many shining examples of women knocking down barriers. I believe the history of outstanding women and many others should be shared with all Americans to uplift and inspire them. I would like to share several outstanding women from Texas who have been several ``firsts,'' but certainly not ``lasts'' of their time.

Lera Millard Thomas was the first woman elected to Congress from the state of Texas. When her husband died in February of 1966, a special election was called in March and she was elected as a Democrat to succeed her husband. Thomas served on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee where she helped to expand the Houston Ship Channel, one of the country's busiest seaports. She chose not to run for reelection and instead dedicated her time to members of the armed services in Vietnam as a special liaison to the Houston Chronicle.

Barbara Jordan was the first black woman elected to Congress and the first woman to represent Texas in her own right in the House of Representatives. Jordan was the first black woman to serve in the Texas State Senate and stayed there for eight years. Elected to the House in 1972, she served until 1979 and gained national praise for her legislative prowess and for her rhetoric and high morals. After retirement, Jordan returned to her former profession of teaching.

Unfortunately, in Texas, the number of women in Congress is historically very low. Currently, there are three women members; myself, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, and Congresswoman Kay Granger. In the Senate, former Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was the first and only woman to represent Texas. In 2017, this is unacceptable. When Jeannette Rankin said that she would not be the last woman in Congress, I believe that she imagined a Congress much different from this one, a Congress that mirrored our society.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 353, the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017.

Climate and weather are not fundamentally partisan concerns; they affect all of our constituents, regardless of their party affiliation. The bill we are considering today, which is the culmination of more than 4 years of bipartisan compromise and negotiation, demonstrates what can be accomplished when we work together to address the concerns of our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, weather affects all of us each and every day. It is a constant presence in our lives. Extreme weather events, which are becoming more severe and more frequent, are damaging lives and property in my home State of Texas, across the continental U.S., and all the way to the islands of Hawaii.

Sadly, the devastation caused by tornadoes, hurricanes, and other severe weather incidents have become a far more familiar occurrence and, really, too much of it for far more Americans. It should go without saying that we need to help Americans avoid and cope with these potentially devastating events by utilizing the very best weather forecasting and warning capabilities.

In that regard, the National Weather Service and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, or NOAA, play a central role in protecting the lives and property of every American. H.R. 353 will help accelerate innovation that NOAA can make use of, turning cutting-edge weather research into essential weather forecasting tools and products; tools the forecasters can then use to protect American lives.

The legislation improves collaboration and cooperation within NOAA and removes barriers that exist between the weather research community, our Nation's forecasters, and the private sector weather enterprise. Improving these relationships will strengthen the accuracy and timing of our weather predictions and, ultimately, will save lives and make our communities safer.

H.R. 353 also reauthorizes NOAA's tsunami warning activities. Communities along our Western Coasts are particularly impacted by the threat of tsunamis. While this bill reauthorizes tsunami warning and research activities at NOAA, it does so at a level far below current agency spending. Such a cut makes little sense. Even in a tough fiscal climate, we should be wary of cuts to programs that negatively affect our ability to protect American lives and property from natural disasters.

I want to applaud Environment Subcommittee Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici for her fight to retain funding for these programs at their current level, and I hope that we can work together with our colleagues to maintain current tsunami funding when it comes time for appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, strengthening our resilience to severe weather events is both vital and necessary to strengthen our Nation's economic security. H.R. 353 will advance our weather forecasting capabilities, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the United States Senate will consider the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since President Trump first nominated Judge Gorsuch in January of this year, there has been fierce debate regarding his credentials, political leanings, and the circumstances surrounding his nomination.

The circumstances surrounding Judge Gorsuch's nomination are alarming. It is only due to Republican obstructionism during President Obama's Administration that Congress is even considering Judge Gorsuch's nomination. After the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, Republicans in the Senate made an unprecedented move to stall the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland--President Obama's nominee--for a record 293 days. It was the source of tremendous tension during President Obama's final year in the White House, and undermined the integrity of the highest court in our lands and our delicate system of checks and balances. Under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's leadership, Senate Republicans refused to hold a single hearing, vote, or take a single action to advance Judge Garland's nomination.

Freshly uncovered ties between President Trump and his close allies and advisors to the Kremlin have also raised numerous concerns about his nominees and the individuals who President Trump is selecting to fill the most trusted positions within our government. With the resignation of retired Gen. Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and foreign policy advisor Carter Page, there is a clear pattern emerging in President Trump's Administration. Members of Congress and others have begun asking questions, and the American people deserve answers before we allow President Trump's nominations to move forward.

Judge Gorsuch's record on the issues also deserves additional scrutiny. While Judge Gorsuch's conservative views are not an outright cause for concern, his record on issues impacting minority groups, women, and workers, and his positions favoring police immunity and corporate interests are cause for concern.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs to come together to carefully evaluate Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. Given President Trump's alleged ties to the Russian Government, I believe it is wise to suspend any of President Trump's nominations until Congress can satisfy any concerns surrounding these ties. It is also hypocritical for Republicans in Congress to cry foul of Democrats for trying to delay Judge Gorsuch's nomination when just a few months prior, Republicans had unjustly delayed President Obama's nominee for a record-setting 293 days. We must act in the best interests of our own country, and I believe that entails delaying the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. Like the bill we considered yesterday, the so- called HONEST Act, H.R. 1431 is designed to harm the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science to make informed decisions.

The bill before us today claims to reform the EPA's Science Advisory Board. And let's talk about what these reforms would mean.

First, the bill establishes a series of roadblocks to prevent independent academic scientists from serving on the Board. It accomplishes this by turning the term ``conflict of interest'' on its head by excluding scientists who have done the most relevant research on the topic being considered by the Board. The bill also prohibits Science Advisory Board members from obtaining extramural research grants for 3 years after their service on the Board, which would be a major disincentive for scientists to serve on the panel.

At the same time that this bill makes it much more difficult for academic researchers to serve on the Science Advisory Board, the bill also makes it much easier for corporate interests to serve. This is accomplished by gutting actual financial conflict-of-interest restrictions against industry representatives. Under this legislation, those industry representatives would simply have to disclose their financial conflicts, and they could serve on panels directly related to their corporate interests.

Finally, H.R. 1431 imposes exhaustive and duplicative notice-and- comment requirements on the Science Advisory Board. I say these requirements are exhaustive because, in addition to being an open-ended process, the Board would also have to respond in writing to any and all significant comments. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the advisory process created by this bill could ever be completed.

Of course, that is the real purpose of this provision. It is designed to throw sand in the gears of the Science Advisory Board process, and prevent board members from ever rendering their expert advice.

These additions are totally unnecessary. The Science Advisory Board already has statutorily mandated notice-and-comment obligations, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act already applies to their activities.

So if this bill passes, what would happen?

As an example, I will turn to a case study from the early 1990s. At that time, the EPA was forming a Scientific Advisory Panel to review evidence of harm from secondhand tobacco smoke. Thanks to internal tobacco industry documents that have been made public, we now know that Big Tobacco made a concerted effort to stack the Scientific Advisory Panel with tobacco industry hacks.

We take it for granted now that tobacco smoke is dangerous, but at that time, in the early nineties, Big Tobacco had succeeded in muddying the scientific waters around this issue by investing tens of millions of dollars in a coordinated attempt to defraud the American people.

If H.R. 1431 had been in effect back then, Big Tobacco likely would have succeeded in co-opting the Science Advisory Board.

What would the effects have been on public health to have had the EPA's science review body controlled by tobacco interests?

That is why a number of public health and environmental interest groups have come out against H.R. 1431. In a letter penned by the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and several other health groups, the effects of H.R. 1431 are summed up like this:

``In short, EPA's Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not the best interest of the American public.''

I couldn't agree more. I strongly urge Members to oppose this misguided bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record correspondence in opposition to this bill: a letter from the American Lung Association, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Public Health Association, the National Medical Association, the Health Care Without Harm Association, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American Thoracic Society; along with a letter from the Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council; as well as a letter from the League of Conservation Voters.

March 27, 2017.

Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical

organizations are writing to express our opposition to the

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest

and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our

organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving

public health.

Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health

decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our

organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act,

EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for

seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on

standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these

bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the

review of complex issues and add undue industry influence

into EPA's decision-making process.

As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would

make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:

Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that

include their own expertise;

Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on

the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the

expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them

these highly competitive grants;

Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making

policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have

regularly sought their advice in the past;

Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA

Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and

unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues

already include public notice and comment; and

Reallocate membership requirements to increase the

influence of industry representatives on the scientific

advisory panels.

In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit

the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to

respond to important questions, and increase the influence of

industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best

interest of the American public.

We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation

would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it

develops policy to protect the American public from

environmental exposures and permit violation of patient

confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:

Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient

information to third parties, including industry;

Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research

that documents the adverse health effects of environmental

pollution; and

Impose new standards for the publication and distribution

of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing

requirements of many scientific journals.

Science, developed by the respected men and women

scientists at colleges and universities across the United

States, has always been the foundation of the nation's

environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making

process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in

the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the

earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the

research-based scientific advice that scientists have

provided to EPA.

Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists,

not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's

decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in

EPA's policy-setting process.

We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.

Sincerely,

Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,

Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.

Harold P. Wimmer,

National President and CEO, American Lung Association.

Georges C. Benjamin, MD,

Executive Director, American Public Health Association.

Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,

Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.

Cary Sennett, MD, PhD, FACP,

President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Paul Bogart,

Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm.

Richard Allen Williams, MD,

117th President, National Medical Association.

Jeff Carter, JD,

Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Let me thank the other side for their vigorous defense of this bill.

I must say that I am a nurse by profession, and I appreciate the gains we have made for using scientific data to determine what is unhealthy for the people; and it really does disturb me to see these protections being torn apart.

It is really unfortunate that we have spent so much time putting these protections of the people in place to see that, in this administration, they will probably fly away. Only the people of this Nation will be the losers, with more healthcare costs when they don't even want health care; more people not able to get out of dirty areas.

I live in the State of Texas where we have seen the detriment of all of the lack of these protections before they came about. Scientists are in science because they believe in the theories that put forth the procedures for us to follow for the safety and protection of human beings.

I regret that we are at a point this time in history where we are willing to throw all that away because of allowing the polluting companies to have more to say about policy. I regret that I have to stand against my colleagues that feel so strongly about getting rid of these protections, but I cannot sit idly by without saying that our Nation will not be in better shape when we take away all the protections for the people and their health.

Everybody wants clean air and clean food and protections from the damage that a bad environment brings, and all this is is taking away those protections.

I ask everyone to vote ``no'' on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1430, the so-called HONEST Act. This is the third time the majority has tried to move this misguided legislation, which was formerly known as the Secret Science Reform Act.

Unfortunately, in this case, the third time is not the charm. The Secret Science bills that the Republicans tried to enact over the previous two Congresses were insidious bills designed, from the outset, to prevent the EPA from using the best available science to meet its obligations under the law. Those bills were constructed to hamstring the ability of the EPA to do just about anything to protect the American public.

As the American Lung Association said at the time: ``The legislation will not improve EPA's actions; rather, it will stifle public health protections.''

The HONEST Act, if anything, is even worse than those two previous bills. There are several reasons for this. Like the prior Secret Science bills, the HONEST Act requires the EPA to release the underlying data from any science that is relied upon when taking action. This would cause a host of cascading problems for the Agency, which is, of course, the real reason they are pushing this bill.

First, the EPA relies upon science drawn from many sources. Since EPA does not own or control the data for most of these scientific sources, the EPA would have no authority to order the public release of such data. This would preclude the EPA from using the vast majority of peer- reviewed science in existence today.

Second, under the HONEST Act, scientific studies relied upon by the EPA must be reproducible from the data that is publicly released. However, the EPA frequently investigates and relies upon scientific studies that are inherently not reproducible.

For instance, the EPA might study natural or manmade environmental disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, to better understand the effects on the environment and to improve disaster response. Under this bill, the EPA couldn't use this type of information at all.

These problems with the legislation were apparently not enough for my Republican colleagues. They have worked hard to make the bill even worse this Congress. The newest addition to the bill would permit the EPA to redact from public disclosure confidential information, such as trade secrets and public health information. However, the bill then sets up an unrestricted process whereby anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement can access any restricted information in the EPA's possession.

This provision is a Pandora's box, which could have untold consequences for the EPA, industry, and the general public. First, the EPA will find it much more difficult to collect scientific data in the first instance if people think it will be disclosed at will. This will cripple the EPA's ability to conduct their own science, which is important since the rest of the HONEST Act essentially places all non- EPA science off limits.

This provision is also in direct conflict with any number of other Federal laws, like the Freedom of Information Act, and HIPAA. The bill provides no guidance to the Agency on how to navigate the minefield it creates, which will surely lead to a morass of lawsuits and legal bills for the EPA.

Finally, this provision places no restrictions on who can access restricted information. For instance, could a chemical manufacturer obtain access to the trade secrets of a competitor simply by signing a confidentiality agreement? Could insurance companies seek the health information of potential customers?

The potential for abuses with this provision are endless.

In a day and age when the most valuable commodity on the black market is personal information and trade secrets, it is unconscionable that we are providing an easily accessible source for criminals around the world.

Finally, the HONEST Act also foists upon the EPA a massive unfunded mandate. While we have no CBO cost estimate for this bill, prior versions were estimated to cost the EPA $250 million per year. However, the bill restricts the EPA to spending only $1 million to implement its provisions. In essence, this hits the EPA with a $249 million unfunded mandate every year.

If that were not bad enough, this bill comes in the face of massive proposed budget cuts to the EPA's science program by the Trump administration.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans claim that this bill is just implementing scientific's best practices. It is odd, then, that a host of scientific societies and science stakeholder groups have expressed their opposition to this legislation. This includes the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of Public and Land- grant Universities, the Association of American Universities; and the American Chemical Society.

If Republicans don't want to be labeled as flat-Earth science haters, I think they would want to listen to what scientists say instead of lecturing them about things they don't understand.

In reality, this bill isn't about science. It is about undermining public health and the environment. That is why a host of public health and environmental groups are actively opposing the bill. This includes, among others, the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Public Health Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Environmental Defense Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record some of the letters I received in opposition.

March 27, 2017.

Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical

organizations are writing to express our opposition to the

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest

and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our

organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving

public health.

Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health

decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our

organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act,

EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for

seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on

standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these

bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the

review of complex issues and add undue industry influence

into EPA's decision-making process.

As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would

make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:

Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that

include their own expertise;

Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on

the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the

expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them

these highly competitive grants;

Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making

policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have

regularly sought their advice in the past;

Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA

Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and

unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues

already include public notice and comment; and

Reallocate membership requirements to increase the

influence of industry representatives on the scientific

advisory panels.

In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit

the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to

respond to important questions, and increase the influence of

industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best

interest of the American public.

We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation

would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it

develops policy to protect the American public from

environmental exposures and permit violation of patient

confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:

Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient

information to third parties, including industry;

Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research

that documents the adverse health effects of environmental

pollution; and

Impose new standards for the publication and distribution

of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing

requirements of many scientific journals.

Science, developed by the respected men and women

scientists at colleges and universities across the United

States, has always been the foundation of the nation's

environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making

process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in

the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the

earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the

research-based scientific advice that scientists have

provided to EPA.

Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists,

not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's

decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in

EPA's policy-setting process.

We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.

Sincerely,

Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,

Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.

Harold P. Wimmer,

National President and CEO, American Lung Association.

Georges C. Benjamin, MD,

Executive Director, American Public Health Association.

Stephen C. Crane, Ph.D., MPH,

Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.

Cary Sennett, MD, Ph.D., FACP,

President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Paul Bogart,

Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm.

Richard Allen Williams, MD,

117th President, National Medical Association.

Jeff Carter, JD,

Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, for the many reasons I have spoken about today, I strongly oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the vice ranking member of the full committee and ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the time that President Nixon signed into law authorizing the EPA, it appears to me that there has been no evidence that they have done anything other than attempt to protect the lives of the American people. I don't believe that this legislation is going to do anything to further that.

It will give them a lot of unfunded mandates, far more than what they would ever be funded to carry out. I would ask everyone to respect the Agency and vote ``no'' on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a valued staff member of the Office of Legislative Counsel-- Mr. Timothy Brown--who is retiring this month after 37 years of distinguished service to the House of Representatives.

The Office of Legislative Counsel is an essential but oftentimes unheralded part of our Congressional support staff. Every bill and amendment we consider in the House of Representatives is drafted with the aid of the professionals in this office. In the course of my two decades of service on the Science Committee, Tim has aided me and my staff innumerable times in the drafting of legislation and amendments. While Tim's background is that of a lawyer, he has worked with the Science Committee staff to draft so many NASA, NSF, and NIST authorizations over the years, that Tim has become, in many respects, a science and space policy expert. In his quiet way, Tim taught the art of applying critical thinking to legislative drafting, and our bills were the better for it. Tim's expertise and dedication to his craft will be sorely missed on the Science Committee.

While we will miss Tim, I hope after nearly four decades of service, that Tim will not miss us too much. I'm sure he is looking forward to spending more time with his wife, Sally, and his four children, Andrew, Alex, Emily, and Olivia. Hopefully Tim will have more time to pursue his passions like his love of basketball. Perhaps it's fitting that Tim is retiring in the midst of the NCAA March Madness.

We often speak of the dedicated staff who make this institution such a wonderful place in which to work. It is the sense of this Congresswoman that Tim Brown is just such a person. The Science Committee's Members and staff wish him well as he moves on to new endeavors and a relaxing retirement. I thank Tim, for his many years of dedicated and loyal service.

Mr. Speaker, when President Trump spoke on the campaign trail, his message to the African American community was clear: ``What do you have to lose?'' Today, just 9 weeks into his presidency, we now know that in a Trump Administration, the American people stand to lose their access to robust medical care, jobs, and more than $54 billion used to fund critically important programs and Departments through the Federal government.

President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget proposal to Congress seeks roughly $54 billion in dramatic cuts to social programs and domestic spending in order to accommodate an equal increase in spending through the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs. His proposal is a poor reflection of the priorities that we hold as a nation and undermines--or eliminates entirely--many of the very programs that millions of Americans rely on the most.

For example, the President's budget proposal slashes funding for education by cutting grants for after school programs and reduces financial aid for low-income students, such as Pell Grants. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will also see a thirteen percent--or $6.2 billion--reduction in its budget, which is reflected in the elimination of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the HOME Investment Partnerships program, and Section 4 Community Development and Affordable Housing.

I cannot help but notice that there is a certain degree of hypocrisy reflected in the President's budget proposal when comparing to what he has touted during the campaign. For example, the Department of Transportation will suffer significant cuts to programs such as TIGER, which has been an incredibly successful discretionary grant program used to fund projects of nation significance in communities all across the country. President Trump's budget proposal also looks to eliminate funding for the Capital Investment Grant program, which the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) in Texas has utilized for many years to respond to the explosive population growth within my district and build up our transportation infrastructure. This moves our nation further away from the $1 trillion in transportation infrastructure spending that the President has proposed during the campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the President's budget proposal in its current form. The cuts included in his proposal are irrational and ignore the dire needs of our people to bolster our transportation infrastructure, create jobs, and pave the way for greater economic opportunity for all Americans--not just a select few. President Trump also wants to slash taxes for the wealthy and our biggest corporations. He will pay for those tax breaks by placing the burden on lower- and middle-class Americans. Just months into his presidency, it is already crystal clear that the American people have a lot to lose under his vision for America and I am proud to join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to oppose these devastating cuts and the entire Trump agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, which not only seeks to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but reform entitlements, redistribute wealth, and strip coverage from millions of people.

The American Health Care Act would reduce coverage for Americans while increasing out-of-pocket costs for the sickest and the elderly. Health plans would fail to meet the needs of Americans with chronic or complex conditions. The bill also eliminates protections against annual and lifetime caps. With a last-minute manager's amendment to repeal the Essential Health Benefits, the ten coverage rules set up by the Affordable Care Act, this ruthless bill has gotten even worse.

The Affordable Care Act required insurers to cover ten ``Essential Health Benefits'' from maternity care, mental health, and prescription drugs, to hospitalization and outpatient care. If this is repealed, comprehensive health insurance will become virtually unavailable in the individual market. This means that individuals with pre-existing conditions would not be protected. Younger and healthier people benefit, older and sicker people suffer.

While the new additions to this measure are startling, the original bill is just as shocking. Slashing and capping the Medicaid program will ration care and give tax breaks to the wealthy. This bill cuts $880 million from Medicaid and then caps the program so that it cannot expand and contract as needed. By the end of 2019, the Medicaid expansion program will freeze and this bill will shift costs to states for the elderly, children, individuals with disabilities, and low- income adults.

This bill will kick 24 million people off their health insurance by 2026, and 7 million people will lose their employer-based coverage. While the Affordable Care Act subsidies were based on income and when premiums rose, the federal subsidy also rose to pay for premium costs, the American Health Care Act replaces those subsidies with a fixed credit amount. The age-based tax credits are a refundable tax credits that is larger for older individuals, however, it allows insurers to charge older enrollees five times more than a younger enrollee.

Mr. Speaker, the public has spoken about this so-called ``replacement'' bill. People will live or die as a result of this legislation. This bill will force Americans to pay more for their premiums, more for their care, more on out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles; all the while giving tax breaks directly to the wealthy. The Republican leadership has rushed this bill to the floor without any consideration and I urge you all to consider its harmful effects. Your constituents are asking you to work with us to repair the Affordable Care Act. Work with us.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and a watering mouth that I celebrate the 30th anniversary of the most famous chicken restaurant in all of North Texas--Williams Chicken. What started as one `chicken spot' in 1987 has now become a successful chain with over 40 stores including 20 franchises, and in addition to being responsible for the best wings you can find in the Dallas area, it boasts 500 employees.

Williams Chicken's amazing growth and story is due to the entrepreneurial spirit of its founder and CEO, Hiawatha Williams. Williams Chicken's humble beginnings are only

as humble as Mr. William's start himself, coming from a small Texas town then going to Paul Quinn College in Dallas. After learning the ropes of the industry at a nationwide fast-food corporation, Williams left to found Williams Chicken, to serve great food to the great people of Dallas.

Mr. William's story of entrepreneurship is an inspiration to business leaders in the greater Dallas community--but it is particularly important to the African-American community. Not only has he created a successful business, but he has chosen to practice his give-back spirit by conducting major outreach in education, youth programs, and corporate philanthropy. He and his restaurant have shown many young people in Dallas that it is possible to create a successful and meaningful business.

Though he can be found in numerous magazines and on TV often, Williams will be the first to say his kind family, his wife Doris and his two adult sons who work in the business, are the ones who keeps him reinforced. Mr. Speaker, Hiawatha Williams is an impressive man with an incredible business, and the taste of his chicken is only outweighed by his taste for the community.

Mr. Speaker, the National Endowment for the Arts was established in 1965 as an investment in our shared culture as a nation. President Lyndon Johnson at the signing ceremony for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act stated that ``In the long history of man, countless empires and nations have come and gone. Those which created no lasting works of art are reduced today to short footnotes in history's catalog.'' I could not agree with this statement more.

Over the past five years, the NEA has provided grants totaling more than $1.4 million to local artists and organizations within the thirtieth district of Texas. In return, these artists and organizations have shared their unique forms of expression throughout the region by creating programs focused on uniting communities around art, bringing arts awareness to underserved areas, and strengthening arts education programs in our local schools.

In his first budget request, the President has proposed to eliminate the NEA. I believe the elimination of this agency would be a grave mistake that would have a negative economic, educational, and cultural impact on countless urban and rural communities across the country.

Programs such as the Dallas City of Learning, which provides a summer education program for more than 35,000 students, would not be as successful as they are today without support from the NEA. Countless performances, exhibitions, and festivals would be affected by this disastrous policy proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose the President's budget proposal which calls for eliminating funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. We must ensure that arts programs across the country are funded so that future generations will understand the culture of our time instead of this great period being a mere footnote in history.

Mr. Speaker, the American Health Care Act, or TrumpCare, does one simple thing: This shortsighted Republican plan forces Americans to pay more to get less. It is nothing more than a tax break for the wealthiest at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Today, joining every major responsible group for providing health care to Americans--including the American Hospital Association, the AARP, the National Physicians Alliance, the American Medical Association, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and the National Nurses United--a group representing over 150,000 registered nurses wrote to Congress urging us to oppose the American Health Care Act.

Registered nurses care for Americans in our most difficult hours. From our first breath of life to our final, nurses are integral to the delivery of health care in our country. More than any other profession, nurses see the personal effects of a flawed healthcare system in the hospital every single day.

I know, Mr. Speaker, because I was the first former registered nurse in the House. I have a firsthand, valuable perspective and insight that nurses have into our healthcare system. We should take their heed alongside the public outcry about the danger of this so-called replacement bill.

These are not paid protesters going to townhall meetings across this country. These are our constituents, participating democratically, telling their Representatives that they want to keep and improve the current law, not repeal and replace.

This proposed plan replaces nothing for the 24 million Americans who would lose coverage as a result of this ill-derived legislation.

In my district alone, President Obama's Affordable Care Act brought

the uninsured rate down from 27.3 percent to 20.8 percent, and insured over 265,000 individuals who did not have coverage before. While the main safety net provider in my district, Parkland Memorial Hospital, provided $1 billion in uncompensated care in 2015, Parkland and the other safety net providers face severe financial burdens in the House GOP proposal.

One of my main concerns with this bill is that it punishes people who get their coverage through Medicaid by capping and slashing the program. With 70 million Americans and 5.2 million Texans who currently rely on Medicaid, per capita caps on the program would not meet the needs of the population, and the people would suffer.

People will live or die as a result of our decisions here on this floor, Mr. Speaker. There is no reason for the Republican leadership to rush this legislation without careful consideration, including the input of those who actually provide health care.

We need to listen to our constituents, our nurses, our doctors, our long-term care aides, and our hospitals. We must listen to the people. This bill will force Americans to pay more for their premiums, more for their care, more for their medicine, more out-of-pocket expenses and deductibles, all the while giving tax breaks directly to the wealthy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider the harmful effects of this bill. Your constituents are asking you to work with us to repair the Affordable Care Act, and we are ready to work.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record correspondence from National Nurses United.

National Nurses United,

Silver Spring, MD/Oakland, CA,

March 21, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 150,000 Registered

Nurse members of National Nurses United, we urge you to

oppose the American Health Care Act when it comes to a vote

on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Registered Nurses care for Americans in their most

difficult hours. More than any other profession, we see the

personal effects of a flawed healthcare system in the

hospital every single day. Our primary responsibility is to

protect the health and wellness of our patients by providing

care at the bedside.

The American Health Care Act poses a mortal threat to the

health and well-being of our patients, and to the health

security of our country. Last week, the Congressional Budget

Office reported that 24 million Americans will lose insurance

coverage under the original legislative text. The plan would

increase the number of uninsured people by 78% in 2020, and

by 86% in 2026. This reality is in stark contrast to one of

the key campaign promises made by the President this past

year--instead of providing ``insurance for everybody'', this

healthcare bill will dramatically reduce the number of

insured Americans. The President also promised not to cut

Medicaid or Medicare, but the AHCA includes drastic cuts to

both programs.

There is not a single aspect of this legislation that will

benefit our patients who lack the health care services that

they need. Specifically, the legislation will:

Eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which will

worsen the health of our communities, spread infectious

disease, and increase health system costs;

Phase out coverage for Medicaid expansion in Medicaid

expansion states beginning in 2020, while preventing new

states from receiving enhanced Federal Medical Assistance

Percentage in order to expand Medicaid;

Institute a per capita cap for Medicaid, along with the

option for states to use a block grant instead. Both options

will reduce coverage for the most vulnerable, shift care from

clinics to emergency rooms, increase system costs for the

chronically ill as they defer treatments because of cost, and

unfairly shift the burden of costs to the states;

Empower individual states to determine eligibility, scope

and benefits for Medicaid as per their own discretion, but

there will be no increase in federal monies to cover expanded

eligibility;

Eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood which will worsen

women's health, and create burdens for women, families and

society from unsafe pregnancies and other health conditions

no longer treated;

Eliminate the definition of ``essential benefits''--a move

that makes all patients vulnerable to the distortions and

marketing games of insurance companies;

Repeal the cost-sharing subsidies of the ACA, and destroy

the ability of 80% of people currently buying insurance on

the Exchanges to maintain coverage;

Open the door for junk insurance. The bill includes a

penalty for lack of continuous coverage, creating a big

incentive for patients to buy low-cost, no-coverage plans;

Fail to encourage low-cost coverage, because the

legislation shifts thousands of dollars in spending from

insurance company spending to the individual's out of pocket

costs;

Reproduce the failed ``high-risk pools'' of the 1990's and

2000's, through the ``Patient and Stability Fund''. It is

inevitable that the number of eligible patients will

overwhelm the resources of these high risk pools;

Repeal the Medicare Hospital Insurance Tax, which will

reduce funding and destabilize for the Medicare program that

our nation's seniors rely on;

Allow insurers to charge seniors five times the amount of a

younger person. This revision will prove to be deadly for our

nation's seniors, and it reveals the extent to which this

reform will benefit the profit margins of insurance

companies, at the expense of patients' lives.

Our experience at the bedside, coupled with analysis from

health policy researchers, confirm our conclusion that this

bill does not address the primary concerns of our patients:

getting the care they need when they need it, without

overwhelming financial burdens.

Over many years, with the notable exception of the passage

of Medicare in 1965, the United States has built a patchwork

health system around private insurance access, rather than

genuine access to health care. This legislation, if enacted,

will perpetuate this system while undermining gains made in

the Affordable Care Act. Given the ultimate reductions in

Medicaid, and the other reversals in the bill, there is

literally nothing in this legislation that provides our

patients with the care they need.

In order to effectively address the health system problems

in this country, legislators must move beyond a private

health insurance company dominated system. Health policy

research, and the experience of every other wealthy nation,

shows that a single-payer health care system is the most

successful model to use. In the United States, Medicare is an

example of how successful such a system can be. If the goal

of our health system is to provide quality care for all

Americans at the lowest cost possible, then we must

transition to a single payer healthcare system--or Medicare

For All.

The principal effect of the American Health Care Act, on

the other hand, will be the loss of existing health coverage

for tens of millions of people without any restraints on

healthcare industry pricing practices. This legislation will

result in overwhelming health insecurity for the American

people.

On behalf of registered nurses across the country, we urge

the rejection of this flawed, and deadly, proposal. We urge

you to instead support guaranteed healthcare for all, through

an improved, expanded Medicare for All program.

Sincerely,

Deborah Burger, RN,

President, NNU.

Jean Ross, RN,

President, NNU.