Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for his incredible and tenacious work to bring us this legislation.

By the way, all 12 appropriations bills have already been passed by the House individually and sent to the Senate.

A vote against the CR is a vote to shut down the government. It is that simple. Today is the day we keep the government operating. We are not going to take the irresponsible path of voting to shut it down.

I stand here in support of the continuing resolution. This legislation before us today not only keeps the doors of the Federal Government open and the services to our constituents available, but also provides short-term funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as CHIP.

This program provides vital health coverage for approximately 9 million children nationwide. So, when my colleagues on other side vote ``no,'' know that they are also voting against these 9 million children who need access to this health insurance.

While I am glad we have this short-term funding, I, too, am disappointed to stand here today without Congress having completed its work to fully fund CHIP for the next 5 years. We did that in the House on a bipartisan basis.

This bill also provides critical short-term funding for community health centers. They are essential. In my district, 63 different facilities take care of men, women, and children in the community health center network. It takes care of teaching health center graduate medical education and special diabetes programs as well. So a ``no'' vote today is against all of those programs.

It is worth noting yet again that the House passed a comprehensive bill, the CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act, in November. It was a bipartisan vote. It will fund the CHIP program for a full 5 years. Community health centers will be funded for 2 years, and the other public health programs will be funded for 2 years.

It would also prevent billions of dollars of cuts to our safety net hospitals. Those cuts will be triggered in January because of inaction in the Senate.

Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the Capitol have yet to move our bill or reach full agreement on some different combination of offsets to pay for extending these important programs. This is disappointing since it means Congress has not yet been able to provide certainty to families across Oregon and the country who rely on these vital programs.

We are well past the time in which we should have had this done. The Energy and Commerce Committee has acted. The U.S. House of Representatives has acted. The Senate Finance Committee has acted. But the full Senate has yet to do so.

I know that Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Pallone believe this must be done as soon as possible. We have been working closely together, along with my fellow Oregonian, Senator Ron Wyden, to figure out how to get a bill to fund CHIP and public health extenders across the finish line. So, while we are frustrated we will not complete our work today, we are determined to continue to work with my colleagues to get this done early in January.

I urge my colleagues to support the CR and these necessary funding extensions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their great work on this: Mr. Rush from Illinois and, of course, the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my friend, Mr. Upton, and our other committee members who put so much into these important pieces of legislation.

To date, the committee has worked in a bipartisan manner to examine and advance thoughtful solutions that prioritize consumers, support American businesses and jobs, and protect the environment. These commonsense, bipartisan bills we are considering today continue this very strong and bipartisan effort.

As many of you have heard me discuss before, hydropower plays an integral role in electricity generation across our great country as well as in my home State of Oregon. In fact, nearly 43 percent of electricity in Oregon comes from this dependable base load power resource, and it has supported jobs along the Columbia River and throughout the State.

Two of the three bills under consideration today build upon the committee's work promoting this emissions-free energy resource. In fact, the House of Representatives has already passed 10 Energy and Commerce Committee bills that promote hydropower and modernize the licensing process so we can get these projects to market faster.

H.R. 2872, the Promoting Hydropower Development at Existing Nonpowered Dams Act, is authored by my good friend from Indiana and committee member, Larry Bucshon. Dr. Bucshon's legislation would promote hydropower development by expediting the licensing process for these types of facilities: dams that could have hydropower put on them, but don't right now. We want to take advantage of that power.

H.R. 2872 also requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Department of the Interior to develop a list of existing nonpowered Federal dam facilities across the country that have the greatest potential for non-Federal hydropower development.

What we want to know is: Where are these dams already in existence so we can put a generator on, in effect, and generate electricity and create electricity without emission?

The second hydropower bill under consideration was authored by our distinguished Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee vice chairman, Morgan Griffith, from Virginia. Now, Mr. Griffith's bill, H.R. 2880, the Promoting Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower Act, unanimously passed the committee last week. This promotes what is called closed- loop pumped storage hydropower development by streamlining the licensing for such facilities.

Fundamentally, what happens is you generate power; and, when there is surplus power, it pumps, puts water on top of a reservoir, and then when you need to generate energy at peak times, the water comes back down through a pipe, through another generator, back into a lower elevation reservoir, and you repeat the cycle. It just really acts like a battery in some respects and produces, again, emissions, free hydropower.

The third bill under consideration today was authored by our committee member Representative Susan Brooks from Indiana, H.R. 1733. Now, this directs the Secretary of Energy to update the Federal strategy for recycling used lubricating oil.

Recycling used lubricating oil provides environmental benefits, reduces energy consumption, which is important, and produces high- quality products for consumers across our country.

Mr. Speaker, cumulatively, these bills underscore the Energy and Commerce Committee's willingness to reach across the aisle and work together in a bipartisan way to find commonsense solutions that make a difference for people across the country that improve the environment and generate emissions-free energy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and the staff on both sides of the committee for their great work in this case.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support these measures and get them to the President's desk.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills referred as follows:

Mr. WALDEN: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 2872. A

bill to amend the Federal Power Act to promote hydropower

development at existing nonpowered dams, and for other

purposes; with an amendment; referred to the Committees on

Natural Resources and Transportation and Infrastructure for a

period ending not later than December 12, 2017, for

consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as

fall within the jurisdiction of those committees pursuant to

clause 1(m) of rule X, and clause 1(r) of rule X

respectively.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee from New Jersey for his great work on this and so many other issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the continuing resolution and especially to highlight a very important short-term provision in here that provides certainty for children, families, and States that rely on the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP.

This adjustment, which was introduced by Mr. Costello from Pennsylvania and Mr. Emmer from Minnesota, will provide the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services with greater flexibility over existing dollars so that the agencies can ensure that CHIP programs across the country, including now in my home State of Oregon, can continue to have vital Federal funding that they need this month to continue CHIP.

This emergency funding will help families and States while Congress finishes the job of providing funding for children's health insurance, public health priorities, our community health centers, Medicare extenders that seniors rely on. All that work needs to get done.

It is important to note, we did not arrive at this place of needing a stopgap funding resolution because this House failed to act. We acted. We did our part. We did our part. I am disappointed that the House has passed CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act, which passed this Chamber a couple months ago with bipartisan support, has yet to be hammered out in the Senate. Of course, over there they need 60 votes to get anything done. So a minority of the minority can lock things up, which they have done.

What makes the inaction on CHIP even more frustrating is that the House-passed bill mirrors the bipartisan policy framework that was voted out of the Senate Finance Committee under the able leadership of Chairman Hatch more than 2 months ago. Unfortunately, though, again, Democrats over there have failed to agree on how to fund these programs. That is different than what we did.

Here in the House, the CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act delivers high- quality healthcare, peace of mind to millions of Americans, providing 5 years of funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, which is one of the longest extensions ever for the program.

Mr. Speaker, it would mean continued access to healthcare for approximately 9 million children across the country who are enrolled in CHIP, another 122,700 in Oregon alone.

Our House bill was fully funded. We did the heavy lift. We funded it through responsible reforms like asking seniors who make $40,000 a month, that is $480,000 a year, to pay about $135 more for their Medicare. Rich seniors pay a little more, and I am sure these grandmothers and grandfathers would do that to help kids afford their health

insurance, and that is what happened here.

Mr. Speaker, we paid it. It is ready to go. We need the Senate to act. I commend the Appropriations Committee and the leadership there for putting this provision in so we won't let kids fall through the gap.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3017, the Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act of 2017, sponsored by our fellow Energy and Commerce Committee member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley). We thank him for his leadership on this.

I especially want to thank John Shimkus, the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, for his leadership in getting this done, along with Mr. Pallone and Mr. Tonko, who played key roles, along with other members of the committee to bring this legislation to the floor and bring it here with unanimous support from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

What are brownfields? Well, they are vacant, underused, and often contaminated properties that are a blight on local communities across our Nation. The EPA's brownfields program is a successful, results- oriented program, and it provides grants to assess and clean up these polluted areas.

Since the brownfields program's inception, more than 27,000 contaminated sites have been remediated, allowing communities across the country to return them to productive use. Cleaning up brownfields sites increases local tax bases, facilitates job growth and wage increases, promotes the development of new infrastructure, improves and protects the environment--all really good public policy goals.

Over 129,000 jobs have been leveraged because of the brownfields program, and almost 70,000 acres have been made ready for reuse. The brownfields program has leveraged over $24 billion, a

significant return on the Federal investment in the program. I read somewhere it was a 16-to-1 rate of return based on Federal investment compared to what we get out of the program.

A 2017 study concluded that cleaning up brownfield properties led to a residential property value increase of up to 15 percent within a mile of these brownfield sites. Another study found an estimated $29 million to $97 million in additional tax revenues for local governments in a single year after the cleanup, which is two to seven times more than the $12.4 million the EPA contributed to the cleanup of those brownfields. So, property values go up, local tax revenues go up, communities are improved, and we create jobs with this very important program.

In my home State of Oregon, we have had a very active and effective brownfields program, and we have seen some great success in my own district. The Old Mill District in Bend--which is pictured here; this is the site of an old lumber mill--was one of those sites. It is easy to see--as the debris was here and the mill was crumbling and we lost all of those jobs--it was transformed into this incredible place with great recreation. With the reopening of the Deschutes River, we have movie theaters and restaurants and offices and residential housing all in this complex now, and it is a showplace. It is a gem of Deschutes County.

Bend isn't alone. In The Dalles, where I was born, Google broke ground on an expansion to their data center there on 26 acres of former mill land that was cleaned up under this program. That expansion of the Google data center is a $600 million investment, expected to create 50 new jobs.

Also, in my hometown of Hood River, the Port of Hood River just finished a brownfields cleanup of another former mill site. That opened up 12 acres of land for future business opportunities in the area.

And in southern Oregon, the city of Grants Pass is in the early stages of working towards a similar goal. They have successfully secured assistance through the brownfields program to begin planning the cleanup and redevelopment of the old Spalding Mill site.

The Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously voted to move this bipartisan legislation out of the committee. We worked closely with our friends and colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to make additional improvements on the way to the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the authorization for the brownfields program expired in 2006. It is well past time we do our job as Congress to modernize and reauthorize successful programs like this. At the end of the day, this bipartisan legislation creates jobs, promotes infrastructure and economic development, and cleans up our communities. It is a winning scenario for everyone involved.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who put so much time and effort into modernizing this program, and I urge them all to support H.R. 3017 as we pass it into law.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4374) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce deaths and severity of injuries caused by agents of war, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Senate Committee on Armed Services from the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb.

U.S. Food & Drug Administration,

Silver Spring, MD, November 14, 2017.

Senator John McCain,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC.

Senator Jack Reed,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed: Thank you for

your commitment to our Nation's service members and for your

leadership in enhancing the Food and Drug Administration's

(FDA) medical countermeasure authorities and collaborations

with the Department of Defense (DoD). FDA shares your goal of

protecting our Nation's military service men and women by

advancing safe and effective medical products, strengthening

our partnerships with the DoD on behalf of our Nation's

warfighters, and ensuring that this critical work is

prioritized by the Agency.

Our Nation's troops face unique risks on the battlefield,

and my colleagues and I at the Agency are committed to

implementing a lasting framework that not only considers

these unique risks, but prioritizes the warfighters' needs by

expediting the development and review of medical

countermeasures needed in the face of emerging threats. The

bipartisan bill that will be considered alongside the

National Defense Authorization Act of 2018 would codify these

commitments to ensure that the warfighters' needs for safe

and effective medical countermeasures are met on a priority

basis and in strong partnerships with DoD.

For instance, I believe this new authority and enhanced

collaborations with DoD will help enable FDA to approve

freeze dried plasma as soon as 2018, addressing a key medical

priority. Further, it will put in place a permanent process

for strong engagement between FDA and DoD on any future

medical products DoD determines are necessary to address

military emergencies. Additionally, under these provisions,

FDA would be able to recognize military threats in advance

and provide an emergency use authorization for a fuller range

of medical products that could help save lives on the

battlefield.

Thank you again for your dedication to our Nation's service

members and for working with FDA on this meaningful framework

to better serve and protect our warfighters. Please be

assured that I am personally committed to this effort. I will

make it one of my highest priorities as Commissioner to

rapidly implement the framework that is called for under this

legislation and work with my colleagues at FDA and DoD to

create an enduring pathway for the efficient development and

prioritization of products intended to help save the lives of

military personnel on the battlefield. Please do not hesitate

to reach out to me as we implement these new authorities.

Sincerely,

Scott Gottlieb, M.D.,

Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform have put their lives on the line for this country, and they deserve to have the earliest possible access to medical products that could save their lives on the battlefield.

H.R. 4374 will establish important new authorities for the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, and the Department of Defense, DOD, to ensure that our warfighters have the benefits of new treatments and new devices.

Mr. Speaker, currently the FDA has the authority to authorize the emergency use of an unapproved medical product for a specific set of military emergencies. They have that authority. This emergency use authority requires two things, though. First, the Secretary of Defense must make a determination that there is a risk of attack on military forces with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agent. Next, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must make a declaration that there is, in fact, an emergency or threat justifying the emergency use authorization of a product.

To ensure there are no unnecessary delays in this process, this legislation, H.R. 4374, establishes a deadline for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Once the Secretary of Defense

makes a declaration of an imminent risk of attack, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 45 days--that is the maximum--to make a declaration that such a risk exists.

Limiting the threat under which an emergency use can be authorized to chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents, frankly, has been too narrow to incorporate all the serious threats of harm to our troops.

To address this problem, H.R. 4374 establishes a new category under which the emergency use authorization process can be triggered. H.R. 4374 expands this authority to include situations where the Secretary of Defense makes a determination that there is risk of attack with any agent that may cause an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to the United States military forces.

In addition to creating new pathways for emergency access to unapproved medical devices, H.R. 4374 also creates a new breakthrough designation to expedite actual FDA approval of medical products for military emergencies.

Currently, the breakthrough pathway exists only for products intended to treat serious, life-threatening conditions where the Secretary determines such a product may demonstrate significant improvement over existing therapies.

Mr. Speaker, this expedited approval is based on the successful breakthrough designation created by Congress back in 2012. This has worked. It has accelerated oncology drug reviews by more than 2 years.

Now, in short, H.R. 4374 addresses the critical issue of military access to the newest available products by expanding the circumstances under which emergency use authorizations can be issued and by establishing an expedited pathway to full approval of products that the Secretary of Defense requests.

Mr. Speaker, policies in this bill are bipartisan. They were developed with the input from the administration as well as the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate. Additionally, CBO has indicated that H.R. 4374 will have no impact on direct spending or revenue. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not only a good bill, it is an important bill for our men and women in uniform, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4374.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey as we work on this together.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), chairman of our Subcommittee on Environment and a veteran himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who I believe is also a West Point graduate. We appreciate his counsel, and I concur.

I appreciate working with the House Armed Services Committee and its very able chairman, my friend, Mac Thornberry.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe), the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, a doctor himself and a veteran.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a great public servant who has served our Nation, I think, in two different uniforms and is a terrific member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), a terrific member of our Conference and of the Armed Services Committee, again, a practitioner of medicine, a saver of wounded people, including our own whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard from my colleagues the importance of this legislation. We found a good balance with our friends in the Armed Services Committee and in working with the FDA and with the leadership of the Pentagon to get this right. What matters most to Americans is that we take care of our warriors on the field when they are injured, and when they are in harm's way that we are doing the best possible thing we can for them.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is important legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw attention, first of all, to page 17, line 23, of the bill because we have heard from those who oppose it that somehow this could adversely undermine the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, et cetera.

Line 23 makes it very clear, ``No effect on other laws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any requirement of'' these underlying and very important laws that protect our environment.

So I just want to make sure that is in the Record. This is the current text of the bill we are voting on today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act.

Hydropower plays an enormously important role in electricity generation across the country, and especially in my home State of Oregon. Hydropower generates 43 percent of electricity in my State. It is dependable base load, it is carbon-free, it is renewable, and it is very important to our region.

Nationally, hydropower is one of the largest sources of renewable electricity generation. A recent Department of Energy report said that U.S. hydropower could grow by almost 50 percent by the year 2050.

Thankfully, my good friend from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, introduced this legislation because, as these entities go to relicense, sometimes it costs tens of millions of dollars just to get a renewal of a government permit to continue to do what you have been doing, and it can take 7 to 10 years to work through the process. By the way, all those costs generally--guess who pays for them? The ratepayers. People paying their electricity bill end up paying for all this incredible, out-of-control review and regulation.

As the committee worked on this legislation under the able hand of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Upton, we solicited feedback from all stakeholders as we crafted this. We made a number of changes to address the concerns. We had hearings, and we had lots of other individual discussions and roundtables. We added new provisions to ensure that States and Tribes are consulted early in the licensing process to identify and resolve issues of concern.

We also made sure that State and local governments could recoup the cost of reviewing applications and conducting studies. We even added a strong savings clause that clarifies our intent that nothing in the bill shall be construed to effect any requirement of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other environment laws.

As a result, we find ourselves here today with bipartisan support for this legislation and the support of the American Council on Renewable Energy, the American Public Power Association, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Edison Electric Institute, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Electrical Workers, the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, the Large Public Power Council, Laborers' International Union of North America, the National Electrical Contractors Association, the National Hydropower Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, North America Building Trades Council, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America--those most intricately involved in making sure we have reliable and clean base load hydropower.

Support this modernization legislation. Mr. Chairman, it is bipartisan, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, sponsored by fellow Energy and Commerce committee member and our Conference Chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Hydropower plays an integral role in generating electricity across the nation, especially back in my home state of Oregon. Hydropower generates nearly 43 percent of electricity in Oregon and this dependable baseload power has helped drive the development of everything from value-added agriculture processing to data centers, creating jobs along the Columbia River and throughout Oregon.

Nationally, hydropower is the largest source of renewable electricity generation and a recent Department of Energy report found that

U.S. hydropower could grow by almost 50 percent by the year 2050. However, as my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest and across the country know, we are not taking full advantage of this valuable resource. Unfortunately, the duration, complexity, and uncertainty of the licensing process has raised significant challenges, preventing investments that would create jobs and benefit consumers.

Thankfully, my good friend from Washington introduced this legislation to alleviate these problems and streamline the federal hydropower licensing process. The bill before us today didn't just emerge from thin air. It is the culmination of five committee hearings and markups, along with several bipartisan staff meetings with the hydropower industry and tribes that have a stake in the licensing proceedings.

We solicited feedback from all stakeholders as we crafted this legislation and made a number of changes to address the concerns raised. We added new provisions to ensure that states and tribes are consulted early in the licensing process to identify and resolve issues of concern. We also made sure that state and local governments could recoup the costs of reviewing applications and conducting studies. We even added a strong savings clause that clarifies our intent that nothing in this bill shall be construed to affect any requirement of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and other environmental laws.

In recognition of the regular order committee process, H.R. 3043 sailed out of committee unanimously by voice vote. The supporters of this bill, especially labor and industry organizations, recognize the vital role it will play in supporting job growth, local economic development, and providing much-needed reforms to the licensing process.

H.R. 3043 seeks to modernize the permitting process by improving administrative efficiency, accountability, and transparency; requiring timely decision making; and by designating Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead agency is approving permits. You may be asking yourself, `why is this process in need of reform?' The answer is simple. As my colleague from Washington likes to point out, it can take up to 10 years or longer to license a new hydropower project of relicense an existing facility. Further underscoring the need for this legislation is the fact that by 2030, over 400 existing projects with over 18,700 megawatts of capacity will begin the relicensing process.

Mr. Chair, this emissions-free energy resource should not be bogged down in bureaucratic red tape any longer. It's past time we modernize this grossly outdated licensing process, so we can get projects to market faster and streamline those projects in need of relicensing. At the end of the day, this important legislation promotes hydropower development, creates jobs, and provides consumers across the country with continued access to clean, affordable, and reliable baseload power generation.

I include in the Record the Supporters of H.R. 3043:

The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE); (American

Public Power Association (APPA); Business Council for

Sustainable Energy (BCSE); Edison Electric Institute (EEI),

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (Boilermakers);

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW);

International Federation of Professional and Technical

Engineers (IFPTE); Large Public Power Council (LPPC);

Laborers' International Union of North America (LiUNA);

National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA); National

Hydropower Association (NHA); National Rural Electric

Cooperative Association (NRECA); North America Building

Trades Council (NABTU); United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Joiners of America (Carpenters).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 601, I call up the bill (H.R. 3922) to extend funding for certain public health programs, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a very, very important public health bill, H.R. 3922, the CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act. This legislation funds a 5-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, along with a 2-year extension of community health centers and numerous other critically important public health programs.

This bill will deliver quality healthcare and peace of mind to millions of Americans. The patients and families helped by this legislation are our neighbors and our friends. More than 8 million children receive CHIP-funded coverage, and more than 25 million patients are served by our community health centers and other important programs.

This 5-year funding of CHIP marks one of the longest extensions of the program since it was created 20 years ago. The policy we are considering mirrors the bipartisan policy that has been introduced and voted out of our sister

committee in the United States Senate.

Funding for these important programs expired September 30. The committee worked on a bipartisan basis well before this deadline to try and reach a bipartisan agreement on a range of policies to offset the costs of this very critically important funding extension.

Three times, at the request of the Democrats, we delayed committee action--three times. We tried to find offsets that were agreeable as we have always been able to do before. Unfortunately, that was not the case this time. These delays meant Congress went past the deadline of September 30.

While States still have rollover CHIP funds available and the next wave of community health center funds won't go out until next year, we cannot wait any longer. Patients cannot wait any longer. Patients need care, these critical programs need funding, and we must move forward.

In my district alone, there are 12 federally qualified health center organizations, with 63 delivery sites. They leverage $41 million in Federal money in order to serve more than 240,000 patients in Oregon's Second District. These health centers--and I have visited many of them--are prevention and public health in action, often serving as the main provider of care for people for hundreds of miles around.

We are also extending the National Health Service Corps and the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education program. Now, Mr. Speaker, these are really important workforce programs that place qualified providers into some of the most underserved areas of our country.

In addition to community health centers and the workforce programs, this bill extends the funding for the Special Diabetes Program and the Family-to-Family Health Information centers, the Personal Responsibility Program, and the Youth Empowerment Program. These locally based, patient-centered organizations provide comprehensive services to those most in need.

Moreover, this legislation eliminates 2 years of the across-the-board cuts to Medicaid allotments called for under the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare. We delay those cuts for disproportionate share hospitals for 2 years. Medicaid DSH funding represents an important component of many State Medicaid programs and is particularly relied upon by many States to help provide additional resources to key safety net providers.

Now, while this relief is only temporary and does not address the larger structural challenges under ObamaCare, it would give Congress time to explore what budget-neutral approaches there might be to allocate existing DSH dollars on a more equitable and fair basis. In my State alone of Oregon, hospitals have told me this relief in this bill, just for them, represents $6.8 million over the next 2 years that they can use to help low-income people get access to hospital care.

Now, in paying for this package--and this is the area where we have the most disagreement with the Democrats--we have taken a fiscally responsible approach, like using existing funding streams for prevention and public health efforts, ensuring high-dollar lottery winners are removed from the Medicaid program so its limited resources can be prioritized for the most vulnerable, and stopping individuals on the Affordable Care Act's exchanges from gaming the system.

The bill also asks Medicare's wealthiest 1 percent, people who are retired and making $40,000 a month--not a year, a month--to pay about $135 more for their Medicare just on parts B and D that is already subsidized by 75 percent, just a little more so we can fund children's health insurance for 5 years.

While it was not ultimately possible, unfortunately, to reach consensus on some of the policies to offset the new funding in this bill, there is broad bipartisan agreement on the core policies contained in this legislation, and I believe there is bipartisan support for many of the reasonable and fiscally responsible offsets contained in H.R. 3922.

Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation. This is long-overdue legislation. It reflects the good work done by your House Energy and Commerce Committee, and I urge my colleagues to put politics aside today and ensure these vital programs get the funding extensions they need. We are over the deadline. It is time to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I call on my next person to say something here, there are 17,000 children in Mr. Pallone's district and 14 health centers that, if he votes ``no,'' he will be voting against.

By the way, the offset he recommended, people who are watching this need to know, would violate statute and it would be a PAYGO violation. That is why it was not acceptable.

See, this is the problem we faced. We delayed three times at their request only to be offered up a pay-for that violates statute and violates our PAYGO rules. We could not accept that. We have to operate within the law like everyone else in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend, and she is my friend from California, obviously was not aware of the fact that it was her party, her leader, who asked us on three occasions to delay bringing this to the floor, including you could look at the CQ article from October 23 where Mr. Pallone says he hopes it doesn't come to the floor.

This was a bipartisan agreement not to bring it until we could try to work these things out. We were all trying to figure out how to get this done.

When it comes to Medicare, remember, we are talking about people making $40,000 a month paying $135 a month more. We can fully fund children's health insurance for millions of children.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the conference chairwoman.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out there are about 50,000 kids that Mr. Green may be voting against today in the Houston area if this goes down and we can't get this over to the Senate and work it out with them. Twice he has voted to cut the Prevention Fund and use it for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson), a very important member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), an incredible advocate for children and healthcare in America.

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

Before I call on my next colleague, I just want to point out that, in Ms. Schakowsky's district, all we are talking about here is seniors making $41,000 a month--a month--would pay an extra 135 bucks so we can fully fund children's health insurance, community health centers. All these programs in here are funded. We use the Prevention Fund, which is not allocated out in the out-years. It is just a pot of money you can use for prevention and wellness. We actually use that to fund this as well.

This is why we have been unable to reach agreement with the Democrats. It is sad they have made this partisan.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, there they go again: delay, delay, delay; and vote against kids, vote against their hospitals, and vote against their doctors. That is why we couldn't get agreement.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).

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

I appreciate the gentleman's sincerity. We work well together on lots of issues. He has also voted to use this Prevention Fund for other purposes in the past, as have I.

We don't touch the Prevention Fund for 2018, and there is $400 million left in 2019, and billions thereafter for the very important programs the gentleman has articulated. We don't use all the money. We leave money behind for these other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is important to note that my friend, and he is my friend from New Jersey, has twice voted to use this Prevention Fund for other purposes, including the 2012 middle class tax cut.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, I would just point out that when Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the 2012 middle class tax cut, we used $6.3 billion out of the Prevention Fund they now say they never touched, yet they have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, once again, my dear friend from California has twice voted to use these Prevention Funds for other things. By the way, when we use them for community health centers, they are doing this work on the ground, helping people with opioid addictions and other healthcare issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

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

Mr. Speaker, sabotaging the Affordable Care Act; what we are doing is putting off planned cuts to our hospitals that take care of low-income people that those cuts called for under the Affordable Care Act. We are putting those off so they can serve these low-income people. That, in their language, is sabotaging the Affordable Care Act.

On the issue of using the Prevention Fund, my friend from California who just spoke, has twice voted to use the Prevention Fund, including for tax cuts in 2012 and for the 21st Century Cures Act last year. Now we are using it for community health centers and children's health insurance programs. This is an appropriate use of a fund that gets replenished by law every year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon), whose constituents and herself have suffered such damage, such destruction as a result of the hurricanes.

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

How cynical what we just heard. How cynical.

Ms. Velazquez has 43,000 children in CHIP, $2 billion in DSH cuts in her district, 43 health centers, and she is going to vote against $1 billion for the citizens of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands because that is not enough.

Yes, we need to do more, so her answer is vote ``no'' today and deny $1 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

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

Wow. We are fully funding CHIP for 5 years. We are fully funding our community health centers for 2 years. We are taking care of programs for our citizens who have diabetes. And the pay-for that they are objecting to most is we are asking the wealthiest seniors in America, those making $40,000 a month, to pay $135 more for their Medicare so we can do this work that is so important.

How ironic. How cynical. This is a pay-for that has been used before for other programs. President Obama himself suggested in a budget that, instead of the top earners, the $480,000 a year, a couple making over $800,000 a year pay a little more as we do here, take it all the way down to $80,000 a year.

We didn't do that. We just said, if you are making $480,000 a year, roughly $40,000 a month, you will pay $135 more. They will not vote for that cut to fund children's healthcare. We will.

That is what is going on here. This is where we could never get them off dead center to make this bipartisan. It is a tragedy this is not a bipartisan bill as it always has been. I, three times, delayed moving this forward, including crossing the deadline of September 30, to try to find common ground that would be bipartisan, and we could never get there because they would never yield in a way where we could find common ground.

So we must go to the Senate from here and we must get our work done for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I get a time count, please, on how much each side has remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I will just point out that the gentleman who just spoke has voted to cut the Prevention Fund before to use it for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's get this back where it belongs. We are fully funding the Children's Health Insurance Program for 5 years and community health centers for 2 years. The only sabotage of the Affordable Care Act going on here today is stopping cuts for hospitals in our districts that serve low-income people that would otherwise occur under the Affordable Care Act. We do that for 2 years.

The Democrats don't think seniors making $40,000 a month--$40,000 a month--should pay an extra $135 for their part B and part D Medicare so we can take care of our community health centers and children who need health insurance.

We delayed this bill coming to the floor at a bipartisan request to find a bipartisan solution that was elusive, sadly. We have never had this problem before, but we have it today. We must act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, today, Members of this House can deliver peace of mind to parents of over 8 million low-income children who depend on the Children's Health Insurance Program. The House can extend funding for important public health programs, including resources for the critical work community health centers do in our communities and in my district and yours. This bill will help deliver much-needed healthcare resources to our friends and fellow citizens in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico.

Yet we have heard complaints about how this package is paid for. Well, let us be clear how this bill funds healthcare for kids and important public health priorities like community health centers.

In paying for this package, we have taken a fiscally responsible and reasonable approach. Our bill funds kids' healthcare by allowing States to dis-enroll lottery winners--these are winners making $80,000 or above--from the low-income Medicaid program. We ensure high-dollar lottery winners are removed from the Medicaid program so that those resources can go to Medicaid-eligible, low-income people in our districts.

Our bill directs funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to finance important prevention and public

health needs, like funding the National Health Service Corps, Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education, Family-to-Family Health Information Centers, and community health centers. If these are not important programs for prevention, wellness, and public health, I don't know what are.

Our bill before us today, which I predict will have bipartisan support, directs funds from the Prevention Fund for important public health priorities that have long had bipartisan support. We are using a bipartisan fund to pay for bipartisan healthcare support for health and wellness, which was its intent from the beginning.

Most recently, nearly every House Republican and Democrat supported this idea just a year ago. Just a year ago, when we passed the 21st Century Cures Act, we said: Here is a health and wellness fund and a Prevention Fund that makes sense for cures, make sense for, we believe today, our community health centers, and for Children's Health Insurance.

Our bill also asks the wealthiest among us, the 1 percent of beneficiaries, those making $40,000 a month, over half-a-million dollars a year--that is an individual--to pay a little more to help fund health insurance for low-income children. I think they are willing to do that, and I think we should be as well.

On multiple budgets, President Obama said this is a reasonable way to pay for other priorities. That was bipartisan. It is bipartisan today.

These reasonable pay-fors have been opposed by some in the Democratic leadership. Some House Democrats want to use children's healthcare and funding for community health centers as a bargaining chip for a bigger end-of-the-year goulash, yet kids and our frontline providers can't wait any longer.

In just a few weeks, States like Minnesota run out of funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. At the request of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have agreed to postpone it time and again, but time has run out. The negotiations did not end as we all hoped they would.

But we can't wait any longer. It is time for this House to deliver peace of mind to the families that rely on these critical programs. It is time to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and to approve the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Guthrie from Kentucky. He has done a terrific job on the Energy and Commerce Committee on many fronts related to improving healthcare, especially for seniors and low- income Americans, among others.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 849. This is the Protecting Seniors' Access to Medicare Act of 2017. This will repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB.

The purpose of IPAB is to reduce Medicare's per capita growth rate. While, certainly, that is important work, this is not the solution.

The IPAB, created by the Affordable Care Act, would be composed of 15 unelected bureaucrats authorized to unilaterally make decisions regarding Medicare's finances, whether that be through draconian cuts to provider payments or by imposing policy changes that would reduce Medicare spending if the program exceeds an arbitrary growth rate target.

In other words, they can do just about anything they want to cut Medicare, and we don't have much of a say in it. These changes would automatically go into effect, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services would be forced to implement these reductions should IPAB be triggered, unless Congress passed legislation that would achieve the same amount of savings.

It is also worth noting that current law does not require a public comment period before IPAB issues their recommendations, so there would be no chance for the public to weigh in. And individuals and providers would have no recourse against the board--can you imagine that?--as its decisions are not subject to appeal or judicial review. This is hardly a model of transparency and accountability.

While IPAB hasn't been constituted yet, the threat of this provision of law remains. So I cannot support IPAB. I never have, because its potential cuts to providers, our doctors and hospitals and others and healthcare facilities would increase out-of-pocket costs for seniors and potentially limit the availability of medical services, restricting seniors' access to care, particularly in our rural areas.

Congress can and should act now to prevent IPAB and prevent the unelected bureaucrats from ever being at the helm of our country's Medicare Program.

I know the importance of this program. It took very good care of my parents, my wife's parents, and others I know. We should reject the premise of surrendering our oversight and our responsibility to preserve and protect the Medicare Program to a board with the power to make binding decisions about Medicare policy, with little accountability.

We know how to make sure seniors have an affordable, sound, reliable healthcare system. We have to create competition at every turn in the healthcare system and look for models that work, like Medicare part D.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee, my colleague from across the river in Washington State. My apologies to Washingtonians because one of our fires, the Eagle Creek fire, actually spotted across the mighty Columbia River, set fire to part of the forests in Washington State down near Stevenson. Fortunately, that fire was extinguished. The one on the Oregon side was terribly dangerous, man-caused, human-caused. It blew out 14 miles in one night headed toward Portland.

These are monster fires. We lost 678,000 acres this year to forest fires in my great State of Oregon. It is about two-thirds of the entire size of the State of Rhode Island. It is enormous. This is happening year after year, and the consequences are extraordinary.

Smoke chokes our airsheds. Schools literally had to shut down and send kids home because it was too smoky to have them inside the school. The 30th anniversary of Cycle Oregon was canceled. That is a major annual bicycle ride that occurs; 30 years, the 30th anniversary, canceled. They couldn't find a way to pull it off. The Shakespeare Festival down in Ashland, nine performances had to be canceled; $400,000, Mr. Speaker, just in ticket receipts that had to be foregone. I am told they had to lay off people as a result.

When you think about not only the lost forests--this is what a forest looks like after it is burned--the ground is often sterilized. You can't even go back and replant for a year or two in some cases because there is no soil left.

The impacts are enormous on our environment. Those of us who are concerned about the environment, about carbon emissions into the atmosphere,

in 2015, when a like amount was burned in Oregon, the Forest Service estimated the blazes emitted more than 90,000 tons of fine particulates and 14.2 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. That is equivalent to more than 3 million cars; 3 million cars.

The cause of these increasingly catastrophic fires, as Dr. John Bailey of the Oregon State University's College of Forestry pointed out during a hearing earlier this month in our Energy and Commerce Committee, in some cases, the forest landscapes in my part of Oregon, eastern Oregon that would have historically held about 20 trees per acre, have more than 1,000 trees growing there today.

You see, we have stopped management. In many cases, we have stopped fire. The forests continue to grow, and die, and build, and get more dense, and so when fire does strike, it is with devastating consequence.

My friend from Florida, and he is my friend, when he gets thunderstorms in Florida in the summer, he gets a lot of rain with it, I bet. If we have thunderstorms in Oregon, we don't get the rain. We went nearly 90 days without any rain, but we still got lightning. The lightning torches these forests and starts a lot of these blazes.

A 2014 study in California by the Nature Conservancy, Forest Service, and others found that these types of projects can reduce the intensity of fires up to 70 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. My intensity of this issue is almost that of the fires we fight.

We can reduce the size and intensity of fires by 70 percent if we do the kinds of projects that thin out the forest, better manage, and be better stewards of our public Federal forests that are contemplated as a result of this legislation.

In Oregon, this bill would take away an arbitrary prohibition on harvesting trees over 21 inches in diameter that has tied the hands of our forest managers. We would clarify timber production mandates of the unique Oregon-California lands in southern and western Oregon to live with the underlying statute and actually have it enforced.

When fires do happen, we would exchange this for a new, healthy forest that would grow green trees that sequester carbon and restore a landscape that we in the West so enjoy.

It is long past time to fix our broken forest policy. I commend the Rules Committee for bringing this bill forward, and I commend Mr. Westerman, Mr. Bishop, and others who have worked on this on both sides of the aisle to help us stop the fires that ravage, and kill, and destroy, and to help us have healthy, green forests.

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank our Members on both sides of the aisle, and especially the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), who has an identical bill, the House companion bill to this one.

S. 652 revises the Public Health Service Act's expanding access to critical resources for the deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns and young children. It will boost training of healthcare professionals in helping these young parents and ensure that, in turn, they can help educate the patient's family members.

This bill will also deliver relief to parents and caretakers of young children that have hearing loss, granting them important resources to aid in their care.

Again, the Health Subcommittee vice chair, Brett Guthrie, is the author of the House companion. When the House today approves this legislation, which I assume it will, that means this bill will go to the President's desk and be signed into law. This is really important work that the Energy and Commerce Committee is doing, once again, in a big and bipartisan way. It is an important bill that will expand access to critical resources for deaf and hard-of-hearing newborns and young children.

By updating and reauthorizing HRSA and CDC grants to help States treat children with hearing loss, we are doing our work to achieve better outcomes for patients.

I am particularly pleased about the potential to harness new and improved data collection systems to improve access. You know, if we can better understand what is happening with patients on the ground, we can make better decisions about where to allocate resources to help recruit more providers and improve coordination of care for children with hearing loss.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the work of the Health Subcommittee and the Members who have put so much into this legislation, and I look forward to the House passing it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding and for his leadership on this, and to my other colleagues from the West, who understand what we face, the problems we face, and what has happened to our forests.

I stand united with all of you in the Western Caucus, because this is something we have done some work on in the past and then we have been stalled out, especially in the last 8 years. I know that President Trump stands with us, wanting to pass legislation, get it down to his desk so he can sign it so we can begin to be better stewards of our great public forests, these public forest lands important to all of us.

As we saw painfully this summer, smoke chokes our citizens, it chokes children. Literally, in my district, elementary school children had to be sent home because of the smoke in their schools because of forest fires.

In Oregon, we have seen some of the worst fires in our State's history. It seemed as if every day came with new reports of more fire, more smoke. While this year's fire season has been particularly intense and devastating, images like these are nothing new for Oregonians. Each summer, smoke has filled our skies in Oregon year after year after year. Vast swaths of our land in our beautiful State are charred.

Unlike private forest owners, the State of Oregon, which I am very proud to be a resident of, and our forest policy and tribal lands and county lands, after a fire, they go in and clean it up, they replant, they get a new, healthy, young forest growing, which if you are concerned about reducing carbon emissions, you want healthy trees, because they actually sequester carbon. Burned, dead, decaying old trees actually emit carbon.

So we can do good things for the ecology of our world by planting new trees after a fire. We will talk about that in a minute.

Smoke inhalation has become a health hazard for Oregonians in their communities. I can't tell you how many in my communities, day after day after day, were given warnings by our health authority that the air was too dangerous to breathe, that it was unhealthy to breathe.

A recent study found that wildfires contribute three times as much fine particulate matter into the air as previously thought, and this definitely can cause respiratory problems and make it difficult to breathe, as the citizens of our great State found this summer.

Wildfires also pollute our atmosphere with carbon. In 2002, the Biscuit fire in southwest Oregon burned more than 500,000 acres, half a million acres. The carbon dioxide emitted during that fire amounted to almost one-quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted in the entire State of Oregon this year.

By the way, we have burned 678,000 acres this year in Oregon at a cost of more than $340 million to fight those fires, State, local, and Federal costs, mostly Federal.

Tomorrow, the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I chair, will hold a hearing to take a look at the air impact of fires, in part because I have constituents who have seen that, in some cases, fires are not aggressively fought if they are in certain federally designated areas, wilderness areas. There is a temptation, apparently, to not use all our tools, and to instead let them burn. That doesn't take into account what happens to air quality and the health of our citizens when fires are allowed to ravage and burn.

So we will take a look at the issues involving air quality and pollutants emitted into the atmosphere and discuss how better management of our

forests could help prevent catastrophic fires and actually protect our airshed and our health.

Each of us today faces a similar situation. Devastating fires ignite across the West as fuel loads build across our public lands--Mr. McClintock did a great job laying that out--while broken Federal forest policy stands in the way of better management, healthier air, protection of our habitat and our watersheds and our streams and our forested communities.

8.2 million acres burned this year. By the way, my colleagues, that is an area larger than Maryland, it is three-and-a-half or so times the size of, I believe, Puerto Rico, which has been wiped out. We talk about the devastation and disaster there and in the Virgin Islands and every other place, but somehow we sort of overlook the fact that we lose this almost every year in our West and in our forested land.

Communities watched their mills close, meanwhile, as Federal policy and lawsuits and litigation has prevented proper management of our forests. So we have lost our jobs, we have lost our infrastructure, we have lost the revenues for our schools, and, in some cases, for basic services like law enforcement.

Now, promises that somehow recreation and outdoor activities would replace those good family-wage jobs, tourism, they are falling short, because guess what, events are being canceled because now the fires are destroying the airshed.

Constituents of mine have been sending photos this year about some of the fires. This one right here is from Mike, who was returning from a hunting trip just a few weeks ago. This was the Eagle Creek fire burning in the scenic Columbia River Gorge area between Cascade Locks and where I live in Hood River.

We had an evacuation notice within a half a mile of where I live on Rand Road. It was level 1, but they had them higher than that as you got closer to this fire.

Meanwhile, events like Cycle Oregon, its 30th anniversary, canceled because of the smoke; Sisters Folk Festival canceled because of the smoke. Down in Ashland, the Oregon Shakespeare Theater, world-renowned festival, they had to cancel nine of their shows at a cost of $400,000 direct revenue loss, not to mention the concerns they have about indirect loss, people who didn't show up for other performances, and might even affect their annual sales.

People are really tired of this. They expect this Congress to take action to try and protect and become good stewards of our national forest land, but this picture tells you what we faced. The Columbia Gorge, where I grew up right near here, I can't remember a time the freeway was closed as long as it was this summer. We had to go over across the river to Washington to our good friends on Highway 14. All the freeway traffic was diverted there, and there is still one lane here that can't pass, because now we are worried about mudslides and rockslides and trees coming down the hillsides.

We need to get back to positive, active management in our Federal forests.

Five years in a row, the U.S. House has enacted legislation, sent it over to the Senate, that would give our professional foresters, our scientists, the tools that they clamor for and need to better manage our forests and reduce the overloading of debris, of dead and dying trees, open up these stands to what they should be naturally, get back in balance with nature. Every year this goes over to the other body, and somehow it never comes back. That has to change.

So tonight, I thank my friend from Arizona who organized this. He knows what forest fires are like in Arizona. My colleague from Washington, my colleague from California, myself, our colleague from Montana, we have dealt with this year after year after year. Now, more than half of the Forest Service budget is spent fighting fire. That is not what we should do as a matter of bad policy.

We need to change Federal policy. We need to let our scientists manage these forests, restore jobs to our forested communities, protect our airsheds, our watersheds, and get back in balance. So I commend my colleagues in the Western Caucus for moving this forward.

I just finished a very positive meeting with the Speaker of the House, who is committed to helping us on this matter. I look forward to us having the opportunity to vote on the Resilient Federal Forests bill and get our Senate colleagues on board as well.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I hope they will tune in tomorrow and watch the testimony at that hearing. I think they will get a better understanding of what the people in our districts have faced. For a month this summer, schools had to be closed, festivals canceled, people choking, going to the hospitals. This is serious stuff, and we need to address it.

We appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the twenty World War II veterans and one Korean War veteran from Oregon who are visiting their memorial on the National Mall on Saturday, September 30th, 2017 through Honor Flight of Oregon. Every time I have the chance to meet one of these heroes from the ``Greatest Generation,'' I am reminded of the poignant words of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a message to Allied troops just before D-Day, he said, ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.''

He was right then, of course, Mr. Speaker. But over seventy years later, liberty-loving people everywhere continue to owe these heroes for their extraordinary service and their incredible stories of sacrifice and bravery on behalf of our country. That's why it is my privilege to enter their names into the Congressional Record today.

The veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: William Cochran, Army; Warren Davis, Army; Richard Fultineer, Army; William Johnson, Army; John Ritz, Army; Jack Downs, Army Air Force; Lawrence Willis, Army Air Force; Charles Kriegh, Marine Corps; Hiram Underwood, Marine Corps; Harry Howard Jr., Merchant Marine; John Webber, Merchant Marine; Raymond Ayers, Navy; Ernest Gallo, Navy; Paul Gessford, Navy; Lawrence Horton, Navy; Stanley Luther, Navy; Lester Manosar, Navy; Harold Simpson Sr., Navy; Orville Stoltz, Navy; Gerhard Tank, Navy; and Paul Vincent, Navy.

These twenty-one heroes join over 150,000 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005.

I would also like to recognize the fourteen guardians traveling on this trip who have also served our country: Leon Clay Jr., Air Force; Charles Wills, Air Force; Ronald Kohl, Army and Air Force; Lyle Gessford, Army; Steven Howard, Army; Terry Wynkoop, Army; Gordon Wood, Marine Corps; Laurie Dutton, Navy; Terry Haines, Navy; David Haines, Navy; Chester Johnson, Navy; Larry Kennedy, Navy; Richard Santillie, Navy; and Tanya Wilson, Navy.

I would also like to recognize Richard Wing Jr., who served our Veterans for 36 years as an RN at the VA Hospital, in Palo Alto, California.

And, of course, none of this would be possible without Gail Yakopatz, the longtime President of Honor Flight of Oregon. Gail has assisted hundreds of veterans, has been a tireless advocate for Oregon's veterans and is someone I am proud to call my friend!

Mr. Speaker, at the height of the Civil War in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln wrote, ``Honor to the Soldier, and Sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country's cause.'' Each of us in this Chamber and in this nation should be humbled by the courage of these brave veterans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 931) to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a voluntary registry to collect data on cancer incidence among firefighters, as amended.

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 material into the Record on the bill.

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

H.R. 931, the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act of 2017, introduced by my friend and colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Chris Collins from New York, who we will hear from shortly, will create a national registry to collect information to better understand cancer incidence in firefighters.

These heroic first responders experience occupational health risks every day. In my district, it is oftentimes from forest fires, like we are having all summer long. This past weekend I saw firsthand what our firefighters face as they battle a number of fires raging in Oregon, putting themselves in harm's way to save property, infrastructure, lives, watersheds, habitats, and our forests.

I was deeply reminded yesterday morning, as I watched some of the news coverage that took us back 16 years ago to 9/11, and seeing the scenes of the buildings collapsing and burning and the people emerging, individual citizens, first responders, caked in dust and toxins and dealing with smoke, you realize just the peril that our first responders often find themselves in. They rush into buildings to save lives, and we deeply appreciate what they do. That is why this legislation is an important step to help them.

Nationwide, we have this problem with our firefighters. They came to us and said: We need this registry.

Again, going back to the West and what we face, and I saw it when I flew across the country to come here, not only are there fires and smoke throughout Oregon, but also all across the West: Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, hill and valley choked with smoke.

Close to 8 million acres burned in wildfires so far this year; more than half a million in Oregon on both public and mostly private lands. Thousands of residents have had to be evacuated. Firefighters, of course, stayed behind. They do what they do.

Multiple studies have shown a correlation between firefighting and cancer. However, the reasons behind this are not fully understood. We owe it to these first responders to understand the causal link to cancer. Having better data to identify why firefighters are at an increased risk for some cancers will hopefully lead to better protective measures and ultimately reduce some of the hazards that they face when putting their lives on the line.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Collins) for his good work on this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins), the author of this very important legislation and an important member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the chairman of the

Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman who helped move this legislation forward, and leads our committee on matters of health.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), another very important member of our Energy and Commerce Committee, who I know had many constituents horribly affected by the tragic events of 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Faso), who also had constituents who were very affected by the events of 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, we all join in thanking our first responders. This is the least of the things we can do to show how much we care about our firefighters, and I would encourage our colleagues in the House to support this very important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the ten World War II veterans from Oregon who visited their memorial on the National Mall on Friday, September 8, 2017 through Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon. Every time I have the chance to meet one of these heroes from the ``Greatest Generation,'' I am reminded of the poignant words of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a message to Allied troops just before D-Day, he said, ``The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere march with you.''

He was right then, of course, Mr. Speaker. But over seventy years later, liberty loving people everywhere continue to owe these heroes for their extraordinary service and their incredible stories of sacrifice and bravery on behalf of our country. That's why it is my privilege to enter their names into the Congressional Record today.

The veterans on this Honor Flight from Oregon are as follows: Kenneth Brandt, Army; George Droz, Army; Charles Robertson, Army; George Schoppert, Army; William Evarts, Army Air Force; Alfred Kruckman, Army Air Force; August Evert, Navy; Ben Lemire, Navy; Otto Schaffer, Navy; Billy Baucum, U.S. Coast Guard.

Some of these brave men served on land in France, Germany, Austria, England, Normandy and throughout the European and Pacific Theatres. Some served at sea in the South Pacific and the Philippines, on patrol frigates and Navy vessels. Some served as air crewman and infantrymen. While each of their roles was different, their dedication to their country was the same.

These ten heroes join the over 150,000 veterans who have been honored through the Honor Flight Network of volunteers nationwide since 2005.

I would also like to recognize the four guardians traveling on this trip who have served our country: Terrie Evarts, Jerry Rozelle, Harley Keiley, and Candy Kelley.

I also want to thank and recognize the group leaders on this night, as well as the dedicated Board Members of Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon and the Bend Heroes Foundation, who worked so hard to make this trip happen.

Mr. Speaker, at the height of the Civil War in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln wrote, ``Honor to the Soldier, and Sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country's cause.'' Each of us in this chamber and in this nation should be humbled by the courage of these brave veterans who put themselves in harm's way for our country and way of life. As a nation, we can never fully repay the debt of gratitude owed to them for their honor, commitment, and sacrifice in defense of the freedoms we have today.

My colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and the volunteers of Honor Flight of Eastern Oregon for their exemplary dedication and service to this great country.