Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member, and I thank the chairman for his work on this, but I am going to rise in opposition to H.R. 1917, the BRICK Act.

This bill will delay the implementation of the EPA's final Brick and Structural Clay Products rule and the final Clay Ceramic Manufacturing rule by extending all compliance deadlines based on pending judicial review.

So what does that mean? That means it will delay implementation until judgment becomes final and not subject to review or appeal. This is a blanket extension that could have lasting negative impacts on the public's health.

Brick and clay plants, if unregulated, can be major sources of toxic air pollutants like hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hazardous metals, pollutants that are associated with a variety of acute and chronic health effects, including cancer. It is estimated that the final Brick and Clay MACT rule will reduce nationwide air toxics by approximately 375 tons per year.

Last Friday, the OMB issued a report showing that regulations have high benefit and low cost. The aggregate benefits of Federal regulations is between $219 billion and $695 billion; whereas, the aggregate costs are $59 billion to $88 billion. Many regulations spur innovation that benefit the economy as well as human health.

Now, it is no surprise to me that this administration and the Republicans are targeting air pollution regulations. The OMB noted that EPA rules ``account for over 80 percent of the monetized benefits and over 70 percent of the monetized costs'' of Federal regulation between 2006 and 2016.

Since regulations protect human health and safety and have more benefits than costs for industry, I stand in opposition to bills like this one that seek to undermine these protections. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1917.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member and the chairman for yielding. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their bipartisan efforts here.

I rise in support of H.R. 4986, the RAY BAUM'S Act. In the first place, this bill will help ensure that the incentive auction repack can move forward in a timely fashion and that Americans can have access to their local broadcasting stations during this period of time.

On the other hand, I am very proud that this bill includes a bipartisan provision that Congressman Kinzinger and I worked on.

This provision will move us forward in closing the digital divide for our Nation's veterans. Access to broadband internet service is critical for the more than 20 million veterans across our country, with the highest population of veterans residing in California.

Having a broadband internet connection helps veterans apply for jobs more easily, obtain necessary vocational training, communicate with family and friends, keep up with current events, access healthcare services, and get important information about their benefits and military records.

Without broadband internet access, it is difficult to fully participate in today's society. Veterans face many challenges when they return home, and not having internet access makes what is already an incredibly tough transition process even harder. This is particularly likely to be the case for low-income veterans and veterans living in rural areas.

Although we lack specific data on the number of veterans with broadband internet access, we know that Americans who live in rural areas are less likely to be connected. This is also the case for Americans who live at or below the Federal poverty level.

We must find ways to ensure that veterans, especially the more than 1.4 million veterans living below the Federal poverty level and the 5.3 million residing in rural areas, are not left behind.

This is why my provision directs the Federal Communications Commission to examine the current state of broadband access for veterans and what can be done to increase access, with a focus on low- income veterans and veterans residing in rural areas.

The findings and recommendations from this report will be important for paving the way to get more veterans connected. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Shimkus for yielding. We work together on nuclear waste. I have been to the Yucca Mountain site, and I have seen the work that has gone on there.

But, first of all, I just want to say there are a lot of issues out there that we are dealing with here in Congress; so how important is nuclear waste? I mean, we have got the gun issue; we have climate change; we have the economy; we want to create jobs; trade. I mean, there are a lot of issues; so how important is nuclear waste? I mean, it has been festering for decades--for decades--so how urgent is it?

You know, we haven't had a major accident yet, but there are tens of thousands of tons of high-level nuclear waste sitting in relatively exposed conditions, so what could possibly go wrong? I mean, high-level nuclear waste is so radioactive that it emits heat. It emits an immense amount of heat. So we could--I will give you a couple of things that could go wrong.

The waste could be commandeered and then made into weapons. It doesn't have to be made into a nuclear fission bomb. It could be made into a dirty bomb. Just put a bunch of nuclear waste with explosive material in some city and that city would be uninhabitable for the rest of our lifetimes, for sure.

There also could be waste leakage. We have nuclear waste sitting on the banks of the Missouri River. We have nuclear waste, tons and tons of nuclear waste, high-level nuclear waste, sitting a quarter mile from the Columbia River, and this is pretty serious stuff. And my friend from Illinois, my colleague from Illinois, I am sure, will tell us about nuclear waste that is on the Great Lakes ready to go. So we have a problem. We have been pretty darn lucky so far.

You know, I worked as a graduate student. I was a graduate student in mathematics. I worked for an engineering professor to study the nuclear waste project at WIPP, a waste isolation pilot project near Carlsbad, New Mexico, and I can tell you the technical solutions are there. Nuclear waste can be safely engineered for tens of thousands of years, as long as it needs to be stored. Transportation can be done safely. I have seen train cars that are designed to hold high-level nuclear waste slammed into concrete walls with no damage to the interior of the car.

This stuff can be done. It is not an engineering problem. I mean, the engineering and the geological solutions are there if we put our minds to making it happen. It can be done in engineering.

However, nuclear waste is a political problem, and it hasn't been managed so far. The politics of the Yucca Mountain waste project were very badly managed from the very beginning. A successful nuclear waste storage project will need complete transparency from the very beginning with the local community. There will always be some amount of opposition, but without local buy-in, the project is going to fail. Local buy-in is absolutely essential. This can be done if there is complete transparency, if the local people understand what the risks are and what the benefits are. This can be done.

Mr. Speaker, we need to devote the resources to finding a permanent solution to nuclear waste. Meanwhile, H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017 is a step, a very important step in the right direction.

I want to thank my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) who has worked on this tirelessly for year after year. I know that some people think that he has gone too far in Nevada, but, nonetheless, if we work together and can become transparent, maybe Nevada will never accept nuclear waste, but we have to find a permanent storage solution that can be done. This is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3053 and give this legislation fair and honest consideration.

Madam Speaker, this week, the President unveiled a budget proposal that would not only endanger the health and safety of the American people and our environment, but also jeopardize the long- term stability of our infrastructure systems.

It completely ignores what we know about climate change, proposing a 61 percent reduction in funding for renewable energy research and cutting critical enforcement tools and public safety regulations.

It also lacks the foresight to produce a forward-thinking plan that will ensure a stable and resilient infrastructure future. In fact, it seeks to eliminate essential programs like ARPA-E, which supports early stage energy research and development.

Nationwide infrastructure systems like the electric grid must be updated to anticipate severe weather and climate conditions. We have seen the toll that national disasters take on our electric grid.

Smart planning and investment is essential to ensuring that we have the proper resources to maintain and operate these essential structures.

The President has spoken at length about investing in our infrastructure. Now let's see some action.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask both sides of this Chamber to stop bickering and finger-pointing and start listening to each other. Let's come to a compromise.

This government shutdown is a disgrace to this Congress and hurtful to this country. Both sides are blaming each other, and the American people are shaking their heads in disgust and disbelief.

Both sides have valid points, but, in this case, partial rights actually make a wrong. The government needs continuous funding. The military needs funding. Domestic programs, such as homeland security, children's health, and the opioid epidemic, need proper funding. DACA needs a solution. The southern border needs securing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members of the House, let's work together and find reasonable compromises for these important issues. Let's look at each other as honorable people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the life and achievements of Ben Barres, a Stanford neurobiologist.

Professor Barres started life as ``Barbara.'' He received a BS from MIT in 1976, an MD from Dartmouth in 1979, and a Ph.D. in neuroscience and neurobiology from Harvard in 1990. Ben started at Stanford in 1993 and made the transition to male in 1997, always championing the cause of women in academia and dignity for everyone.

Ben had 160 scientific publications. Perhaps his greatest achievements were about the glial cells in the brain that are responsible for the formation and regeneration of neurons. He found that the glial cells play a central role in developing the wiring of the brain. Prior to his work, these cells were thought of as the insulation for neurons, much like packing peanuts of the brain.

Professor Barres cofounded Annexon Biosciences, Inc., a company that makes drugs to block neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's. Ben Barres died on December 27 of pancreatic cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my neighbor and friend, Mr. Garamendi, for holding this Special Order tonight and allowing us to talk about what this tax bill means.

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day in America, as the House passed an unholy tax scam of a tax bill. This bill was rushed through Congress with no hearings, no Democratic votes, and no Democratic amendments. This Republican tax scam is being deceptively sold as a benefit for the middle class, but the real winners will be the big corporations and those on the cover of Forbes 400 richest Americans.

The Republican tax scam will increase the national debt by almost $2 trillion, burdening our children or giving a Christmas bonus to the wealthiest Americans.

The Republican tax scam permanently lowers the corporate tax rate while the child tax credit increase expires in 2025. In other words, big corporations get a permanent tax cut while the middle class receives a temporary tax cut.

This tax scam places a cap on State and local taxes for individuals, targeting punishment for Democratic States. This is a new low for our democracy. The Republican tax scam also repeals the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. This will cause 13 million Americans to lose their health insurance. Taking healthcare away from those who elected us is shameful.

Earlier today, we heard from Ady Barkan, who was recently diagnosed with ALS. Many will recognize Ady from the video of him confronting Senator Flake in an airplane.

Ady spoke passionately this morning about the dangers of this tax scam. As he was finishing, he talked about the opportunity we have to come back and do a real tax reform, in 2018, and do so in a bipartisan way. His hope for what a good tax bill should look like struck me. He said that we should come back and negotiate a tax bill that elevates human dignity, instead of promoting human misery.

This Republican tax scam will hurt millions of Americans, many who are already struggling. We need a bipartisan solution to tax reform, not a special interest scam that benefits the wealthiest.

Mr. Speaker, Americans should have no doubt this tax scam will hurt them and the economy. Forget about investing in infrastructure. Forget about investing in education. Forget about investing in research. You better start worrying about Medicare and Social Security. This tax scam will make America a Third World nation.

Mr. Speaker, this tax scam is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to further our understanding of geoengineering as a potential strategy to prevent the most detrimental impacts of climate change. The evidence of climate change and its effects can already be seen around the world. The situation in the Arctic is alarming, as sea ice is declining by more than 13 percent per decade. Increased global temperatures, warming oceans, rising sea levels, more intense hurricanes and droughts--the writing is on the wall.

Slowing these trends and eventually reversing them is the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced. Our first priority in addressing climate change should be to embrace climate mitigation strategies. This includes drastically reducing our emissions, embracing clean energy, and shifting our economies away from fossil fuels. This problem stops getting worse when we stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which means we have a long way to go.

Scientists have made very clear that as global temperatures rise there will be severe consequences to our society--it will harm public health, our economies, and our very way of life. While geoengineering should be considered a potential last resort in preventing climate change, it is something we need to better understand.

My bill would direct the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics to lay out a research agenda and governance principles for geoengineering research. I want to be clear--this is not authorizing any large-scale deployment and, frankly, we are decades if not longer from any serious consideration of geoengineering as a legitimate strategy for temporarily addressing climate change. The bill would authorize a rigorous review process to determine where we should make federal investments in this emerging research field and how we should set up oversight of this research.

There is no substitute for drastically reducing carbon pollution. Our focus can no longer just be a question of how much we can mitigate against climate change, but also how fast we can do it. The urgency of climate change forces us to consider every option, and geoengineering is one that should be researched as we continue our mitigation efforts.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this well-vetted, thoughtful approach to better understanding geoengineering and its potential to combat the effects of climate change.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of the committee for his hard work on this. He has been a great voice.

Madam Speaker, this is a harmful and deceitful bill. It is strictly partisan. We have learned over the years, if you do something strictly on a partisan basis, it isn't going to work. It is going to fall apart. It will come back to you. I am telling you, learn from our mistakes. Work with us.

There hasn't been a single hearing on this bill.

Is the public out there confused? They should be because they haven't been informed about what this bill does.

It was rushed through in 1 week. It takes more than a week to name a post office around here.

What is the deal? What is going on here? No one really understands the consequences of this bill, but I can tell you what it does.

It will greatly reduce taxes for corporate America. It will reduce taxes for the wealthy.

So where do you think the money is going to come from to pay for Social Security? to pay for our roads and highways? to pay for our education? to pay for Medicare? If you haven't guessed, it is going to come from the middle class. There is no other way we can pay for this.

So I will be kind and say maybe they are being overoptimistic. Maybe they don't really understand what is going on there, but don't believe it. You are going to pay more taxes. It is going to come out of your hide.

And when I sit down, the Member from Nebraska is going to say that, in my district, you are going to get $1,200 more or $1,700 more. No. You are going to pay more. You are not going to get more money back.

In California, 6 million people will lose their tax deductions, the State income tax deduction. What does that mean? That means you are going to pay taxes twice on your earned income. In California, homeowners are going to get hit hard. I don't see how anyone from California can vote for this bill.

Education will be more expensive; student loans will not be deductible. This bill will hurt our Nation's ability to compete.

What does that mean? It means lower pay. It means layoffs.

This tax overhaul is a big lie. We should oppose this bill and start over and do it right.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3922.

Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we authorize CHIP and community health centers, but slashing essential public health funding is not the right way to do it.

Treatment of chronic diseases accounts for 75 percent of our Nation's healthcare spending, and many of these diseases can be prevented. Unfortunately, H.R. 3922 does not do that at all. This bill cuts in half the ACA Prevention and Public Health Fund that plays a critical role in preventing and treating chronic diseases, including keeping kids healthy.

The massive cuts to this funding will be devastating to my Central Valley of California district. My district has the largest number of tuberculosis cases in California for children under 5 years old. Children in this age group are more likely to develop life-threatening forms of TB since their immune systems are less mature. Public officials in my district are relying on funding from the Prevention Fund to address TB outbreaks.

It is troubling that Republicans are using CHIP reauthorization to take core public health services away from kids. It is also frustrating, but not surprising, that the Republicans are making another attempt to sabotage the Affordable Care Act. This legislation is robbing Paul to pay Peter, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lipinski for his leadership on this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about climate. We know that climate is changing, and we have seen it.

In California, we had horrific wildfires that claimed 40 lives and destroyed thousands of structures. We have seen hurricanes more frequently, more devastating, and more powerful than ever before. So the effects are there. We see it happening.

Now, the thing that we are faced with is that there is a significant section of people that deny climate change. You can sort of see why they are denying it. I mean, if something is in your interest, you are going to be able to talk yourself into just about anything.

The big benefit of denying climate change is that we can continue to use fossil fuels. If you are a company that uses fossil fuels or produces fossil fuels, yeah, this is what you want. But there are costs of denial, and the costs of denial are clear.

We are seeing weather. We just talked about that. We are seeing health effects. We have seen that both in terms of elevated temperatures, causing people to have heat problems. We are seeing disease vectors moving to the temperate zones from the Equator. We are also going to see significant infrastructure costs, like we see in Puerto Rico now. These are real costs that we are going to pay for the denial of climate change.

Now, what are the benefits of climate change?

Well, there are significant benefits, from my point of view.

First of all, we have been spending American taxpayer dollars to develop technology to fight climate change, or to reduce carbon emissions.

I will tell you a little story about my own career. I was working at a company called U.S. Wind Power. With some amount of taxpayer dollars, we developed the leading technology for wind energy. Of course, what happened was that the funding stopped, tax credits ended, and that technology that we developed with taxpayer dollars went to Europe. They built thousands of windmills in Germany, and they made a lot of money based on that technology that we developed and paid for right in the United States of America.

We also know that renewable energy production creates more jobs than fossil fuel production for the same amount of energy. We are talking about a potential to create millions of jobs in this country. Not only that, but renewable energy has a stable price market feature. Unlike fossil fuels, which have highs and lows over a 10-year cycle, fossil fuels are going to be nice and stable, will be predictable. And businesses love predictability. So I think this is also another very good argument.

Lastly, if we reduce fossil fuels and go to clean energy, we are going to have cleaner air and cleaner water, a healthier environment, and we can reach sustainability. I think the benefits are pretty clear.

So where are we now?

Well, there are still significant resources out there determined to muddy the waters and confuse people about climate change. I have three publications here I want to illustrate. One is called ``Clexit for a Brighter Future.'' Now, the point of this is that we need to exit the Paris and United States climate treaties because fossil fuels are what we need to power the future.

Another one is called ``The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism.'' This one, if you look it up, is biased, and it seems to be paid for by oil interests.

The last one I want to show is a respected magazine that is called National Geographic. And the cover page shows ``The War on Science.''

So I think we have a pretty good case to make for moving forward with action on climate change.

There will be significant costs if we don't. Renewable energy is more than cost competitive these days. As I mentioned, I worked in the wind energy business. We see wind and solar being more cost competitive-- more than cost competitive, really--with coal and oil for energy production.

So we have the technology, we have the means, and we have the desire to do this, yet we are still hung up here in Washington in terms of following through with government support that is needed with the right sort of policies that will encourage us to reduce fossil fuel reduction.

Now, one of the great bright spots we see--as Mr. Lipinski, my friend from Illinois, pointed out--is that there is a bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus that has been formed over the last two terms. In order to join, you have to have a Member of the other party. If I am a Democrat, I have a Member of the Republican Party join.

What we are doing in that caucus is creating legislation that will help reduce carbon emissions in an economic and prosperous way. I think good things have a potential to happen. I encourage the caucus to continue, and I hope it continues to grow.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the month of October, we have celebrated the Women's Small Business Month.

According to the National Women's Business Council, there are around 9.8 million women-owned businesses in our country. Collectively, women- owned businesses produce about $1.4 trillion in annual receipts and employ over 8 million employees, as this graphic shows.

The largest number of women-owned businesses are in my home State of California. California has about 1.3 million women-owned firms. In addition, in my district, the cities of Stockton and Lodi were ranked by WalletHub in 2016 as the second best place in California for women entrepreneurs.

Despite the challenges women-owned firms encounter, women entrepreneurs employ many residents that make up the vitality of our local communities across the United States. That is why I stand here today to acknowledge and celebrate women-owned small businesses such as the Valley Brewing Company in Stockton, California, owned by Kellie Jacobs, a friend of many years.

Let's support and thank all of the women entrepreneurs in our country and honor all of these businesses.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Clean Power Plan. This rule was intended to combat and mitigate the effects of climate change and create first-ever limits to carbon pollution from U.S. power plants.

As we deal with the devastation created by some of the strongest hurricanes in recorded history and the wildfires that are raging through Western States, we can't stand idly by while

this administration eliminates the Clean Power Plan, condemning future generations to scarce resources, harsher climates, and economic uncertainty.

Extreme weather has cost the U.S. economy at least $240 billion over the past 10 years. Climate change increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather. Shouldn't we focus on hardening and securing our infrastructure and making it more resilient to climate change?

The Clean Power Plan would also reduce plant pollutants that cause asthma attacks and respiratory illnesses, and it is projected to prevent thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of asthma attacks, and provide at least $20 billion in total health benefits.

The denial of science by this administration is alarming and dangerous. I urge my colleagues to stand up for clean energy and our environment and take positive action to address climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her work on this small business bill. I also thank Chairmen Smith and Chabot and Ranking Members Johnson and Velazquez for including my amendment to benefit minority-serving institutions in H.R. 2763. This is essential to retaining American leadership in innovation and small business development.

The SBIR and STTR programs were both created to expand small business participation in the Federal research mission. One of the four objectives Congress had in mind in establishing the SBIR was to facilitate and increase the participation of minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation.

My amendment requires that the participating Federal agencies in the SBIR and STTR programs conduct outreach to minority-serving institutions--MSIs--and Hispanic-serving institutions and faculty conducting research at these institutions so that participation rates in Federal research and development opportunities will increase.

There are many great MSIs and researchers who work at these institutions across the country. For example, California State University Stanislaus, which has a campus in my district, is a Hispanic-serving institution and an MSI, and has been ranked one of the best colleges in our Nation. Our country depends on innovation of MSIs and the intellectual capital of its graduates.

In the 21st century, American economic growth is going to be determined by the innovation and growth of technology and STEM-focused businesses. It is critical to the growth of our economy that minority- serving institutions and minority-owned businesses are connected to this technological ecosystem.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself from cosponsorship of H.R. 1865.