Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Madam Chair, this amendment is anything but simple. It is highly complex. Per- and polyfluorinated compounds, there are probably 5,000 different permutations, and my colleagues act like it is one formulation; and it is multiple.

So what they want to do is, in essence, do a de facto ban by claiming a class of 5,000 chemicals as qualified for toxic and in the Superfund; and that is a de facto ban of all these applications.

We are all going to fly home tonight. We are going to close the door to the plane. We are going to have this seal, and this seal is what is used to protect--the seal around the airplane door--us, so we don't get sucked out. Banned, toxic Superfund.

No one disputes our colleagues' concerns and maybe my concern about former installations, current installations, and water in ditches from firefighting foam. So let's deal with that issue.

Let's not do what this amendment and other amendments will do which is throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

So what do we use some of these formulations of per-and polyfluorinated compounds--again, some 5,000--for? We use it to save the lives of people.

Here is a stent, which are in millions of people. PFAS banned, de facto banned, because it falls under a Superfund. No one is going to make them because they don't want to be held legally liable if this stent eventually goes into a landfill. So we don't need that anymore.

More kids than I know are born with a hole in their heart. So what is the chemical compound that helps plug the hole, so these children can grow and mature? Oh, it is a PFAS-formulated compound. So let's have a de facto ban on this device.

Remember, these medical devices are approved by our Food and Drug Administration. They say they are safe to be inserted into the human body. So why would we then say, if it is safe to be inserted into the human body, these medical devices are now going to be unsafe in a landfill, and then you have a Superfund act and, again, a de facto ban?

This shouldn't be in this debate. I have great respect for the chairman and the ranking member, but this is a National Defense Authorization Act. It is not an Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee act; and I hope we will take that up.

EPA deals with toxicologists, analytical chemists, organic chemists, epidemiologists, chemical biologists, material scientists, theoretical chemists. Those are the ones who are going to help us decide which of the 5,000 permutations of PFAS are actually good and which ones are actually harmful.

But this says they are all bad. It is like--my folks don't want me to use this example. It is like saying, an orange is bad. Let's ban all fruit.

Okay. No, we are going to take the peeling of a banana and throw it in a dump. Oh, no, that is going to be a toxic dump under Superfund, and no

one is going to have and harvest bananas anymore. That is just ridiculous.

It is moved by emotion. We understand that. It is moved by real problems and groundwater contamination. We are not against that.

My plea is, let's use the committee process, and help you and help me and these other communities affect change and provide safe drinking water to our communities.

We have got the water communities who are afraid of this amendment. They are afraid of this amendment because of previous practices, and then them falling under Superfund liability, and then having to raise rates based upon providing sludge to farmers who put it on their ground, and then they get held up in this Superfund trap.

So I have all the waterway councils, all the water works, the municipal utilities that are saying, this is not the way to go to ban a whole class, and this is going to put us on the hook, and it is going to raise water rates.

I also have a list of 20 or so manufacturing sectors. They said, let's clean up the water. Let's not ban a whole class.

July 11, 2019.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We,

the undersigned associations, believe that Congress should

act to address contamination associated with per- and

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a manner that

prioritizes cleanups over bureaucracy. For this reason, we

oppose Amendment 440 offered by Reps. Kildee and Dingell, and

Amendment 48, offered by Rep. Pappas, to H.R. 2500, the

``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020.''

PFAS are a large and diverse class of chemicals with unique

properties that have been used in a broad number of

beneficial applications for decades. Heightened attention to

potential health effects of certain PFAS chemicals has

understandably led to increased public concern and interest

in new regulatory protections in this area.

We support action to address these concerns, and are

committed to proactively working with Congress, regulators,

and other stakeholders to establish risk-based standards for

PFAS that protect human health and the environment.

We applaud the leadership of Reps. Kildee, Dingell, and

Pappas for pushing Congress to address PFAS contamination.

Amendments 440 and 48, however well-intentioned, are

unproductive approaches to expeditiously address PFAS

contamination.

Amendment 440 would require the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act (CERCLA), or Superfund, within one year.

Similarly, Amendment 48 would require EPA to add all PFAS to

the list of toxic pollutants regulated by the Clean Water Act

and establish effluent and pretreatment standards, which

could trigger ``back door'' CERCLA designations.

CERCLA listing decisions are not political questions that

Congress is best positioned to address. EPA should retain its

traditional authority to study potentially hazardous

substances and to ascertain whether they should be designated

under CERCLA. The Superfund program has a strong track

record, and EPA's career scientists have the requisite

expertise to examine PFAS.

Moreover, Amendments 440 and 48 would likely lead to slower

cleanups because of an overwhelmed EPA and the potentially

needless reopening of vast amounts of remediated sites. Such

an approach could also undermine the nascent progress towards

clean up at some of the prevalent, known contaminated sites.

We are disappointed that an amendment proposed by Rep.

Fitzpatrick, with Reps. Boyle, Upton, McKinley, Rouda, and

Blunt Rochester, will not come up for a vote in the House.

The approach of this bipartisan amendment, which mirrors

provisions of the defense authorization bill passed by the

full Senate, would have encouraged the development of a

consistent approach and clear timelines for assessing and

regulating specific PFAS across all relevant federal agencies

to ensure that government regulations, actions, and

communications are consistent and coordinated for maximum

effectiveness.

Congress's goal should be to create conditions for cleanups

to occur as expeditiously as practicable. While we oppose

Amendments 440 and 48, we applaud the work of the amendments'

sponsors and the other leaders of PFAS issues in both parties

for their important contributions. We look forward to working

with you on this important matter as the legislative process

continues.

Sincerely,

Airlines for America; Airports Council International--

North America; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers;

American Chemistry Council; American Forest & Paper

Association; Council of Industrial Boiler Owners;

Flexible Packaging Association; International Liquid

Terminals Association; National Association of Chemical

Distributors; Plastics Industry Association; Petroleum

Marketers Association of America; Society of Chemical

Manufacturers and Affiliates; TRSA, the Linen, Uniform,

and Facility Services Association; U.S. Chamber of

Commerce.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, if this amendment were limited to the 18 per- and polyfluorinated compounds that EPA knows about and has rendered a judgment on, we would be having a different debate. Formulations like PFOA and PFOS, for example, have been studied and have already been taken out of commercial use.

But this amendment, like others we will be debating, emotionally and politically requires severe action on an entire class of chemicals, maybe as many as 5,000 substances. It does so without due diligence and scientific inquiry.

Nobody denies that there are real concerns and frustration in communities affected by PFAS contamination. My colleague has raised those concerns, and we certainly want to help those communities, especially those that host our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The use of firefighting foam in those areas has caused PFAS to enter into ditches and canals and seep into groundwater formations.

But while we can and should take action to limit or even prohibit uncontrolled releases of PFAS-containing firefighting foam, we can't lose sight of why this foam is used in the first place. If you or your loved one are on a nuclear submarine that is carrying nuclear weapons under the Arctic icecap or involved in a fiery aircraft accident on the runway, you want the best firefighting foam available, not the second best.

The concern of these communities needs to be addressed, but this is not what is happening in this process.

Many of the compounds targeted by these amendments are parts of manufactured goods that when disposed of are not soluble in water.

Let me highlight a couple that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to be inserted into the human body as medical devices. Yes, lifesaving PFAS-related chemicals have been approved by the FDA. They are in medical devices and have been approved to be inserted into the body.

Mr. Chair, to the ranking member and to the chairman, the reason for the importance of going through regular order in the committee process is because we understand the chemicals. We deal with healthcare.

As far as lifesaving equipment, we are going to go through a couple of those. Many recognize what a stent is. This stent is there to open up arteries, and it saves lives and allows people to live a normal lifestyle.

This is one that was brought into my office a couple of weeks ago. Many more children than we would ever guess are born with holes in their heart. It is tough, but modern medicine and technology have allowed these children to lead and live normal lives.

How? Well, there is a medical device that is part of these 5,000 compounds of the PFAS community that saves these children's lives and allows the heart to repair itself, and they go on to live a normal life.

This is a National Defense Authorization bill, not a healthcare bill, not a chemical, science, EPA bill. So let's look at national defense.

Here is the F-16, with all the components that have per- or poly- fluorinated compounds as part of the F-16 platform. Do we really want to essentially ban all these parts that would eventually go into some landfill, and they are not soluble, and create a Superfund situation for the landfill into which they go?

We have heard a lot from municipal landfills that are disposing of legal nonsoluble items in regulated landfills. Do we really want to place farm land under the Superfund designation because a farmer used wastewater treatment sludge as a fertilizer?

That is why we must do our due diligence and go through regular order through the committee of jurisdiction.

I serve as the ranking member on the Committee on Environment and Climate Change. It is our duty to have oversight over the USEPA; it is our duty to protect our communities; and it is our responsibility not to overreact.

Chairman Tonko and I are actively engaged on this issue. As I have raised this, it is very complicated, but it is not impossible.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject these shortcuts and allow the committee process to work. That is the only way we can hope to address PFAS concerns without the significant unintended consequences this and these other amendments would create. Please vote against the amendment. Please allow bipartisan discussions to continue.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to start talking about science and jurisdiction and why it is important to go through regular order.

We just heard my colleagues talk about PFAS or PFOS or PFOA, three different things that mean three different things. What my colleagues have done is lumped them all into one category. If you eliminate one class of chemicals, you take the F-16 and you ground it. You have got Ethernet cables, fiber channel assemblies, round cable assemblies, shielded twisted pair, EMI.

This is a National Defense Authorization bill, and the Rules Committee has allowed an amendment on the National Defense Authorization bill that would ground the F-16s without doing due justice to science and the committees of jurisdiction.

There are a couple of other problems with the en bloc amendment.

Again, this amendment requires action on all PFAS, all of it. There may be 3,000 to 5,000 different permutations of this chemical. All these substances are not alike.

Also, EPA has said it knows little of the PFAS class and only has a valid tool to really identify 18 out of the 3,000 to 5,000 formulations. If EPA can only identify right now 18, how do you identify 1,500 permutations of this chemical?

Second, the amendment skirts scientific risk criteria and dismisses expert administration review, especially the provisions banning PFAS in MREs--we heard that--and containers.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, I mentioned this earlier on another amendment, this would ban substances used in assembling and packaging, which there is no known safety concern. The FDA approves packaging for food, but we are going to ban packaging for food when it is the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration, which is not the jurisdiction of HASC.

Third, as drafted, these amendments could create confusion, overreach, and mismatched responsibility among Federal partners. The PFAS ban and the MRE language requires the Defense Logistics Agency to implement it, but MREs are sold at commercial grocery stores. So are we going to have the Defense Logistics Agency police PFAS MRE packaging in the local Piggly Wiggly or Walmart or other guns and knives stores?

The incineration provisions require the Secretary of Defense to administer and enforce requirements on incineration of items.

So we have been attacking the administration of the Department of Defense saying they can't do their job, they don't meet the IG standards, and now we are going to put them in control of air emissions and clean air standards.

That is what this does when you allow amendments to a bill that are not germane to the underlying committee.

Last, provisions require the U.S. Geological Survey to come up with PFAS detection performance standards, instituting a nationalized sampling program at PFAS-contaminated sites and own the results. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency, which only has a minor ability to consult role, has statutory responsibility for cleanup sites. USGS will be messing around with and will be dependent upon the USGS to obtain its data.

So it is the EPA that is responsible for cleanup, but we are going to give

the U.S. Geological Survey the responsibility.

Many of these amendments are not germane to the defense authorization or have received process to ensure they don't create problems. Quality work in these areas would have followed regular order. Americans deserve that we are as careful doing our jobs as they are doing theirs. We mentioned this in the other amendment.

I am working with Chairman Tonko to address perfluorinated compounds. It is a very difficult issue. We have experts in the majority; we have experts in the minority that deal with chemicals. This is not the place to do it, and I would ask people to vote against the amendment en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the American Legion of Breese, IL, which is celebrating its 100th year anniversary this month.

The American Legion was commissioned by Congress as a patriotic veteran's organization. This not-for-profit organization became the nation's largest wartime veteran's service organization. The American Legion is dedicated to mentoring our youth, advocating patriotism with honor and promoting strong national security to continue their dedication to their fellow veterans.

In recognition of a 100 years of faithful service, the Breese American Legion is hosting a picnic on July 20th at 3 p.m., to celebrate with their community. Guests will enjoy great music, delicious food, games for all ages, a petting zoo, and much more. All the proceeds will be put towards benefitting community scholarships, schools, youth programs, and veterans.

It is an honor to extend my well wishes and profound congratulations to the current officers--Commander Jeff Jung, Auxiliary Rep. Julie Tebd, Sons of the American Legion Rep. Mike Haag--and many others who have upheld and played major roles to continue the success of this organization.

Madam Speaker, over the past 100 years, the Breese American Legion have supported and uplifted their communities through their many charitable programs. It is an honor to recognize this organization as it celebrates 100 momentous years of service. I am excited to see how it will continue to grow and wish it all the best in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise to note the passing of a most remarkable man. Julius W. Hegeler II of Danville, Illinois died July 5, 2019 at the age of 91.

To say that Mr. Hegeler led an impactful life would be to gloss over the thousands who benefitted from his caring nature, his generosity of spirit, and his humanity. Few people are in a position to make such a positive impact, and even fewer take the opportunity. Mr. Hegeler will forever be remembered for having seized his opportunity with such an outsized desire to help that he never turned anyone away.

A lifelong resident of Danville, Julius graduated from Danville High School and went on to earn a business degree before enlisting in the Air Force. He flew 70 missions as a jet pilot during the Korean War, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in May 1954 for ``extraordinary achievement,'' and earned the Air Medal and Oak Leaf Cluster as well.

Returning from the war, Julius and others built a chemical packaging company that he later sold. His fortune made, in 1992 he placed 90 percent of his wealth into the Julius W. Hegeler II Foundation and set out to give back to the community that he loved. Julius was especially concerned with helping those with disabilities and gave generously to local organizations such as Danville AMBUCS and WorkSource Enterprises. There were no limits to causes he would support, however, as the arts, education, recreation, community, and youth-focused groups and organizations have all benefited from Julius's assistance.

Danville has lost one of its very best, a man who shunned the limelight but who nonetheless made so many lives brighter and richer. It has been my privilege to spend time with Julius Hegeler, and those memories I will always hold dear.

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my sincerest condolences to the family of Julius W. Hegeler II on the loss of this truly remarkable individual, and I wish the family the best during this very trying time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to acknowledge St. Paul Blue Point Lutheran Church for its 150th year as a congregation. Built on October 31, 1869 in Altamont, IL, the church became a place of peace and fellowship for all attendees.

To celebrate this historic occasion, the church held honorary services dedicated to the anniversary on Sunday, June 2. Keynote speakers of the event included Rev. Mark Witte and Rev. David Witte, both of whom are direct descendants from the church's founders. At present, eleven families are of direct descent of the original 31 founders and are still active amongst the congregation.

I extend my well wishes to the current officers--Rev. David Speers, Todd Wachtel, Corey Guy, Alex Wendling, Doug Kopplin, Doug Hammer and many others who have played a major role in spearheading this event.

Madam Speaker, the St. Paul Blue Point Lutheran Church and the entire congregation should be very proud of their continuing commitment and service over the past 150 years. I am excited to see how the church will continue to grow and make an impact in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Goreville High School girls' softball team on winning the 2019 Illinois Class 1A championship. Goreville overcame the Glasford Illini Bluffs by a score of 4-2 in seven innings. This win marked the season with a 29-9 overall record for the Blackcats.

The team's overall tenacity and determination were observed through the commanding victories during postseason action. Throughout all of the postseason bracket games, the lady Blackcats scored over 70 runs as a team, causing many games to end early due to the run rule. This is Goreville's second state championship title in three years.

Head Coach Shanna Green conditioned the team with a spirit of competition and passion of working for one another. In the championship game, the Blackcats only committed one error and batted an impressive .346 as a team.

It is an honor for me to extend my profound congratulations to the entire team which includes Abigail King, Kelsey Ray, Miley Kwiatkowski, Emma Vaughn, Kyleigh Massey, Ellie Grammer, Cheyenne Walker, Chloe Wolaver, Alexandria King, Adrianna Licka, Destani Bennett, Samantha Licka, and Payton Sopczak.

Madam Speaker, the athletes, coaching staff, and the community should be proud of their accomplishments. I wish the graduating seniors the best in their future endeavors and best of luck to those returning for a chance of a third state title in four years.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Vandalia, Illinois, which is celebrating its bicentennial this year.

Located in Fayette County, Vandalia was the state's first capital city. Situated on the Kaskaskia River, the Illinois General Assembly first met in Vandalia in December 1820. At the time, the state treasurer transacted business

at his home, while the auditor and secretary of state worked in the brick building that housed the state bank.

The first capitol building was destroyed by fire in 1823 and a second capitol building was built in haste the following summer. Two years later people refused to enter the building for fear it would collapse, and so a third capitol building was constructed, which is the one that stands today.

Abraham Lincoln began his political career in Vandalia in 1834, and five years later the Illinois General Assembly met for the last time in the Vandalia Statehouse. In one of its final acts, the legislature deeded the building to Fayette County and the town of Vandalia. The State of Illinois purchased the old statehouse and public square in 1918 to ensure its preservation for future generations, and in the decades following carried out a major effort to restore the building to its Lincoln-era appearance.

Madam Speaker, with four days of activities planned, the celebration promises to highlight the city's rich history. It is an honor to recognize the City of Vandalia as it celebrates its bicentennial, and I wish it all the best for the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Teutopolis High School baseball team on winning the 2019 Illinois Class 2A championship. Teutopolis defeated Pleasant Plains 12-6 for the title, capping a 28-8-1 season for the Wooden Shoes.

The team's dedication and hard work were evident again, as the Wooden Shoes advanced to the state championship game for the third straight season and added a second title to the one captured in 2017. Head Coach Justin Fleener formed a team with both high production in the batter's box and resilient defense in the field.

I extend my sincere congratulations to the entire team: Mitch Hemmen, Mitch Hardiek, Brady McMahon, Trenton Schwerdt, Tyler Runde, Andy Niebrugge, Justin Hardiek, Derek Deters, Evan Addis, Hayden Ruholl, Dawson Smith, Evan Wermert, Brock Deters, Matt Deters, Clint Weber, Brayden Will, Luke Ungrund, and Dylan Overbeck.

Madam Speaker, the players, coaches, and the entire community of Teutopolis should be very proud of their accomplishments. I wish the graduating seniors the best in their future ventures and good luck to those who will return for a chance to make it back-to-back championships next season.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Benjamin Mills Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution.

During the Revolutionary War, Benjamin Mills served as a private and then as a 2nd lieutenant in the Maryland troops. His wife, Elizabeth, was also a patriot, having sewn shirts for the soldiers. After the war, the Mills family left Maryland to live in Pennsylvania. The family moved west, settling in Paris, Kentucky where Benjamin, Sr. died in 1822. Son Andrew and his family then migrated to Illinois in 1827 and settled in the southern part of Bond County, where hundreds of their descendants still populate the area.

On June 16, 2019, the Benjamin Mills Chapter, in coordination with the Illinois State Regent, Gloria Perkins Flathom, will dedicate two official NSDAR plaques in honor of Camp Ground Cumberland Presbyterian Church and Old Camp Ground Cemetery.

The Old Camp Ground Cemetery was established around 1830. Buried there are Revolutionary War soldier Joseph McAdams, Mary Trotter Mills, daughter of Revolutionary War

soldier Joseph Trotter, as well as veterans from the following conflicts: 1812, Black Hawk, Indian, Mexican, Civil, Spanish, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

The Camp Ground Cumberland Presbyterian Church began as a revival meeting of local families, and eventually led to the founding of the church at the site circa 1826. The original church building held worship services furnished with only the bare necessities, a dirt floor and a pulpit.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to recognize the Benjamin Mills Chapter of the NSDAR as it dedicates these two plaques. The Chapter has been active in the Bond County area for over 100 years, and I wish it the best as it embarks on the next 100 years of promoting the Daughters of the American Revolution motto: God, Home, and Country.

Madam Speaker, I rise to include in the Record part two of an article I submitted earlier this year by Keith J. Hamel honoring the 150th Anniversary of the West Point Association of Graduates:

``At the turn of the 20th century, the Association of

Graduates of the United States Military Academy had been in

existence for more than three decades. It began on May 22,

1869, when 15 graduates, acting upon an idea from Robert

Anderson, Class of 1825, met in the office of Dr. Horace

Webster, Class of 1818, and adopted articles and bylaws for

the new organization. Article II of the Association's

Constitution stated: ``The object of this Association shall

be to cherish the memories of the Military Academy at West

Point, and to promote the social intercourse and fraternal

fellowship of its graduates.'' According to Charles P.

Echols, Class of 1891, the early years of the Association

were dedicated to ``little more than holding an annual

meeting at West Point, collecting dues, and publishing an

annual bulletin.'' Echols was generalizing, of course--in its

early years, the Association moved Sylvanus Thayer's remains

to the West Point Cemetery and memorialized him with a

statue, and it built a memorial hall at West Point with funds

left by George Cullum in his will--but in the first stage of

its existence, the Association was hardly recognizable as the

organization it would later become. That began to change

during the Association of Graduates' second stage of

evolution (1901-45), as changes to AOG's mission, governance,

and operations signaled its desire to become more like a

``modern'' alumni association.

One year into that second stage, the membership of the

Association was celebrated by President Theodore Roosevelt,

who attended West Point's Centennial Exercises and said

during his June 11, 1902 speech, ``During [its first 100

years] no other educational institution in the land has

contributed so many names as West Point has contributed to

the honor roll of the nation's greatest citizens . . . The

average graduate of West Point during these hundred years has

given a greater sum of service to the country through his

life than has the average graduate of any other institution

in this broad land.'' A year earlier, almost as if in

anticipation of Roosevelt's remarks, the Association's 1901

Annual Reunion included an ``Index to Obituaries (1870-

1900),'' which contained 953 names of the president's ``honor

roll'' and information on how to find biographies detailing

each's ``sum of service to the country.'' Also, with 1902

being the Centennial of West Point, some 350 members of the

Long Gray Line were present to personally hear Roosevelt's

tribute, more than triple the attendance of the previous

highest annual meeting attendance (109 in 1883). During the

Centennial Exercises, they also witnessed Lieutenant General

John M. Schofield, Class of 1853 (Retired) and President of

the Association, unveil a tablet commemorating the Academy's

first century of existence. ``Let us all pledge ourselves to

our country, that the best efforts of our lives shall be to

make the record of the second century even more memorable

than that of the first,'' Schofield said in his brief

remarks.

Despite the excitement and vigor inspired by West Point's

Centennial Exercises, the Association of Graduates returned

to a more

typical level of attendance in 1903, with only 20 graduates

attending the annual meeting. Lack of participation became

one of two main concerns of the Association in the new

century. During the 1905 annual meeting, Alexander Webb,

Class of 1855, proposed a resolution to form a committee to

study the attendance issue and to offer a solution. Webb's

classmate Charles Larned was appointed chairman. He

reportedly addressed the matter at the 1906 meeting, but no

records of his report exist. A few years later, however,

Robert Howze, Class of 1888, who was a member of Larned's

``Committee on Entertainment,'' suggested that interest could

be added to the annual meeting if the Superintendent would

designate one day during the graduating week as ``Graduates'

Day,'' and that ``some specially interesting features be

added to this day's exercises.'' Howze's idea was

enthusiastically received and unanimously adopted, but it

took 15 years before it came to fruition under a new name.

The second main concern of the Association centered on a

gift that graduates could present to the Academy. In 1907,

John Carson, Class of 1855, suggested that the Association

raise funds for an organ for the new Cadet Chapel, for which

the Academy had just broken ground a year earlier. At the

same annual meeting, a proposal was made to purchase bronze

doors for Thayer Hall (then the name of the ballroom in

Cullum Hall), but it was rejected given that plans were

already underway to change the room, making such doors

obsolete. The gift matter went to committee, and the

following year its members recommended a memorial window for

the new Cadet Chapel to be built over the altar. By 1909, one

year before the Cadet Chapel was completed, the Association

had raised $1,564 for the ``Memorial Window Fund.'' Eight

glass companies submitted competitive designs for the

project, and on October 17, 1909 a jury of committee and

advisory members settled on two designs, which went head-to-

head in a second competition in February 1910. The contract

for the memorial window, at an amount of $8,000, was

ultimately awarded to the Willett Stained Glass and

Decorating Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Soon after,

Bertram Goodhue, the architect of the Cadet Chapel, wrote a

letter to the Association stating, ``I think there is no

doubt but that you will have . . . the most wonderful window

of modern times and one of the finest in the world.'' At the

conclusion of the 1911 annual meeting, which was held in the

new Cadet Chapel, Horace Porter, Class of 1860, presented the

memorial window to the Academy on behalf of the living

alumni, approximately 140 of whom were present to see Major

General Thomas Barry, Class of 1877, the 27th Superintendent

of USMA, accept the Association's gift.

In addition to noting the increased number of graduates

attending the 42nd annual meeting, the 1911 Annual Reunion

was the first to highlight classes holding their own reunions

at West Point, citing those of 1886, 1891, 1896, and 1901.

Two years later, all five living members of the Class of 1863

returned to their Rockbound Highland Home to celebrate the

50th anniversary of their graduation. According to the 1913

Annual Reunion, ``Everything possible was done to make it

pleasant for the visiting graduates by the Superintendent,

the Quartermaster and the officers detailed to meet the

trains and have charge of rooms in Cullum and Cadet

Barracks.'' In a letter submitted to the 1913 Executive

Committee, Francis Hills, Class of 1866, went even further,

extending his personal appreciation to Colonel Clarence

Townsley, Class of 1881, the 28th Superintendent of USMA, for

making all graduates ``feel that they are warmly welcomed to

their old home.''

In the wake of these warm sentiments, Gustav Fiebeger,

Class of 1879 and a member of the Executive Committee,

announced a plan at the 1915 annual meeting for classes to

purchase one panel each for the remaining windows of the new

Cadet Chapel. According to George Pappas, Class of 1944, the

next morning, representatives from the Class of 1875

presented the Association with a check for $250, making it

the first class to place a window in the Chapel. Within two

years, more than 20 classes sponsored windows. ``The Stained

Glass Window'' project became the forerunner of Class Giving

at the Association of Graduates, with each graduating class,

1802 through 1976, purchasing a panel and filling all the

available space (windows in memory of earlier classes were

sponsored by classes graduating 100 years later). The new

Cadet Chapel inspired even more giving: Arthur Gerhard

donated a baptismal font in memory of his father, William

Gerhard, Class of 1869; and the Class of 1885 initiated an

effort to purchase a full set of chimes on behalf of the

Association. Furthermore, the enthusiasm for the Academy at

this time could not be contained to just the annual meeting

at West Point. In 1915, more than 100 graduates dined

together in Honolulu, Hawaii, sending ``felicitations to

those gathered at West Point''; and, in 1916, graduates held

large dinners in Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco,

Honolulu, and Manila to celebrate the anniversary of the

Academy's founding.

Unfortunately, World War I put a halt on the momentum that

had been building for the Association and Long Gray Line

during this time. There was no annual meeting in 1917, and

the next major milestone of AOG history did not occur until

1922, despite the Association celebrating its 50th

anniversary in 1919 (although it did present the chimes to

the Cadet Chapel at its annual meeting that year). At the

1922 meeting, William Dykman, Class of 1875, who was elected

President of the Association in 1920, introduced several

amendments to AOG's Constitution. First, he proposed ``to

amplify the statement of the object of the Association.''

This amendment added the phrase ``to promote its [the

Military Academy at West Point] welfare and that of its

graduates'' to Article II of the Constitution, which is the

predecessor of the West Point Association of Graduate's

current mission: ``To serve West Point and the Long Gray

Line.'' Dykman also suggested revisions to AOG's governance:

recommending a Vice President, increasing the Executive

Committee from 10 to 30 members (to be appointed by the

President), and transferring the appointment of AOG Secretary

and Treasurer from the presiding officer at the annual

meeting to the President. Dykman's amendments were

universally adopted, putting AOG on the path to developing

the Board of Trustees governing model that would it later

employ throughout the remainder of the century. Dykman's

arguably finest contribution to the Association occurred two

years earlier, although it took some time to become manifest.

In 1920, after he had been elected President, Dykman sought

to influence members of graduating classes to join the

Association and introduced the idea of associate membership

to AOG. In the 1921 Annual Report, Dykman reported that all

17 members of the Class of 1921 (the ``Orioles'') became

members. The same was true for the Class of 1922, ``nearly

all as life members,'' and more than 80 percent of graduates

from successive classes throughout the 1920s joined.

According to Dykman's obituary in the 1938 Annual Report,

``This infusion of younger members into the Association of

Graduates, for which he was largely responsible, gave the

Association new life and new objectives.''

One of those new objectives was ``Alumni Day'' (modeled on

``Graduates' Day,'' proposed 15 years earlier), which was

first held on June 11, 1923 and included a wreath-laying

ceremony at Thayer Statue, a tradition that continues to this

day. From 1925 to 1928, Dykman served as AOG Vice President

(the post he recommended three years prior) and then as

Chairman of the Board of Trustees until 1935. In 1926, his

idea for associate membership was finally approved, allowing

those who completed initial summer training and stayed at the

Academy long enough to take their first semester's exams to

join the AOG. This expansion of membership provided a

temporary spike in the Association's revenue (a nearly 45

percent increase in membership fees and annual dues), but a

1927 report by the Finance Committee (of which Dykman was a

senior member) showed the need to establish an income stream

beyond dues to support the Association. As a result,

provisions were made for the establishment of an Endowment

Fund, the annual income from which would provide necessary

operating funds for the Association in perpetuity.

Statements in the report such as, ``If this Association is

to fulfill its natural and proper mission and give that

measure of support and assistance to the Military Academy

which other Colleges and Universities receive from their

graduates, it must have an assured income,'' seem to come

straight from Dykman, who was a respected New York City

lawyer and director of four powerful companies of the day.

Returning to his obituary, ``[His] great contribution to the

Military Academy and to the Association of Graduates was

giving to it a re-birth of interest and imbuing its members

with a feeling of respect for the power of the Association in

doing many things for West Point which the Academy and the

War Department authorities could not well do.''

During its ``re-birth,'' the Association of Graduates gave

life to new projects and grew in its duties. The ``Forward''

to the 1929 Annual Report called attention to some of these

changes. It stated, ``This issue . . . represents the

beginning of an effort upon the part of your Officers and

Trustees to present it in a somewhat improved and more

attractive form . . . new matter has been introduced, and

long lists containing names and addresses of members have

been omitted . . . the work of the work of the Association is

an event of the first importance, and promises much towards

the increased usefulness of the Association in the future.''

The Association was moving toward what Alexander Piper, Class

of 1889 and AOG President (1934-36), later called, ``. . .

more life and less morgue.'' There was even discussion during

this time to ``kill'' publication of graduates' obituaries in

the annual report, which comprised approximately 75 percent

of each issue, but members ultimately felt this would violate

the original mission of the Association: ``. . . to cherish

the memories of our Alma Mater,'' particularly through its

graduates.

In 1930, the Association renewed the publication of the AOG

Bulletin, a ``mid-year pamphlet'' designed to keep members

``informed of current matters of interest during the long

interval between the publication of [AOG's] annual reports.''

There were four Bulletins issued between December 1900 and

April 1905, but then publication mysteriously ceased. One

plausible reason is that the earlier Bulletin was published

by ``U.S.M.A. Press, West Point, N.Y.'' AOG balance sheets of

this period only show expenses for publishing the annual

report, which used Seemann & Peters, Printers and Binders of

Saginaw, Michigan. AOG was able to revive the Bulletin thanks

to the support it received from the June 1929 establishment

of an Association office at the Academy, manned by an active

duty officer who served ``in the capacity of Secretary and

Treasurer of the Association of Graduates and as the Officer

in Charge of Cullum's Register.'' AOG published four

Bulletins between 1930 and 1934. As before, the reason why

publication stopped remains a mystery, although its design

seemed to influence the annual report, which started

publishing reunion summaries in 1935.

The Bulletin reappeared one more time in 1941, brought back

to inform ``Association members of matters of current West

Point interest, particularly since the Military Academy

curriculum, always in step with the times, so well meets the

demands of the present national emergency.'' The format of

this last issue had radically changed from its predecessors.

Instead of long treatises regarding ``The Indebtedness of the

United States to the Military Academy'' or ``Arthur Sherburne

Hardy's Opinion of the West Point Educational System,''

Bulletin No. 9 was written in news sheet style and contained

brief reports about current happenings at the Academy (e.g.,

``First Class Attends Maneuvers,'' ``Branch Instruction,''

``Skeet Club,'' reports from academic departments, etc.). A

year later in 1942, AOG's Bulletin and the annual report,

which had existed for 72 years, merged to form the first

issue of Assembly magazine, the periodical publication that

would inform graduates for the next 70 years.

Innovations to keep AOG relevant to graduates were not only

confined to its communication efforts. The final part of the

Association's re-birth involved changes to its governance,

which were done to make the organization more transparent and

accountable to its membership. After accepting Dykman's

proposed changes in the early 1920s, AOG elected a President

and Vice-President at each annual meeting. The President then

appointed an Executive Committee of 30 members, as well as an

additional member to serve as Chairman. The Executive

Committee made all preparations for the annual meeting,

including nominating candidates for the President and Vice

President positions, and audited the accounts of the

Treasurer. Starting in 1929, the number of Vice Presidents of

AOG was increased to five and the Executive Committee became

known as the Board of Trustees. Furthermore, the Trustees

appointed for that year were equally divided into three

classes: one appointed for one year, one appointed for two

years, and one appointed for three years. In each successive

year, another group of 10 grads were appointed to the Board

of Trustees to serve for a term of three years.

Then, in 1935, Piper, President at that time, proposed the

formation of another body labeled the ``Executive

Committee.'' This committee, which consisted of the President

and four Trustees (chosen by ballot of the Board), would

``possess and exercise by a majority of its members all

the powers and duties of the Board of Trustees,'' when it

was not in session. Unfortunately, a year later, learned

that the election of this Executive Committee was

illegitimate, as it was voted on by proxy, which was a

practice prohibited by New York State according to the

Association's certificate of incorporation. In correcting

this oversight, the Board agreed to sweeping changes in

AOG's Constitution and governance. First, Article III,

paragraph 2, was amended so that Association members now

directly elected Board of Trustee members instead of the

President appointing them. Then, paragraph 5 of that

Article eliminated the Chairman of the Board position,

stating, ``He is not necessary and seldom has any

knowledge of the operating affairs of the Association.''

Finally, the By-Laws were amended to eliminate excess

Trustees (i.e., the President, the five Vice Presidents,

and the USMA Superintendent) and prescribe the duties of

the Board, Treasurer, and Secretary. This governance model

continued, with some minor tweaks (e.g., increase the size

of the Board in 1956 and adding an Executive Vice

President in 1972), for the next six decades.

After addressing its governance issues, AOG turned its

attention to the recurring question of how to fund its

operations. While the Endowment Fund started out strong--

Bulletin No. 5 (1930) reported cash and pledge contributions

amounting to nearly $55,500 of its $100,000 goal--the Great

Depression obviously took its toll. By the mid-1930s, the

Association was still approximately $25,000 short of the

goal, and the fund's $2,700 yearly interest was not enough to

cover AOG's annual expenses ($5,600-$6,000). Although roughly

70 graduates a year were being dropped from the Association's

member roll during the height of the Depression for non-

payment of annual dues, the Army Athletic Association, which

also accepted support from graduates, was able to remain on

solid financial footing. Piper was dismayed by this

situation, and other AOG leaders called on younger graduates

for support (contributions generally came from classes prior

to 1930). It took a few more years, but in 1941, Frank McCoy,

Class of 1897 and AOG President, reported, ``Our funds have

now reached sound, healthy proportions,'' with income

exceeding expenditures the preceding year by nearly $8,000.

The Association of Graduates entered the World War II era

beginning to look like the organization with which many are

familiar today. It had started to financially support the

Academy, first with the windows in the Cadet Chapel and then

in 1939 with furniture for Quarters 100 (the

``Superintendent's Quarters Fund''); it had an effective

governance model in which all operational decisions were made

by the President and the Executive Committee, who were

accountable to the membership, and then carried out by a

small staff; and it had replaced the 350-plus-page annual

report with the more engaging, less than 50-page ASSEMBLY

magazine, published quarterly. The state of the Association

was strong enough that in 1942 the Board debated the idea of

lowering or eliminating dues. The proposal failed, but it

signaled AOG leadership's desire to remove the burden of

operating support coming primarily from membership dues.

Looking to find a new income stream, the West Point Alumni

Foundation was established on December 26, 1945 to solicit

advertising for ASSEMBLY and an annual (instead of decennial)

Register of Graduates. The foundation's incorporation marks

the transition from AOG's second stage of history to its

third phase of ``Foundation and Fundraising'' (1946-94),

where the Association's fundraising efforts for the Academy

increased in importance, and its growth culminated with the

opening of its new home, the Herbert Alumni Center. This

phase in AOG history will be covered in the summer issue of

West Point magazine.''

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the chairman of the full committee is correct. We appreciate his help and support in working through these technical corrections. We don't oppose them, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, it is great being on the floor with a lot of my friends on the Energy and Commerce Committee and my colleagues across the aisle. Obviously, we have a fundamental disagreement.

I know, in southern Illinois, one of the biggest questions I always got and concerns was that ObamaCare plans are too expensive, and the deductibles

are too high, so we can't use them. Hence, no one wanted to use them.

Part of the change in the political landscape because of that was Republicans controlled the House. That is what happened politically. Here we are, and my colleagues and I have belabored this point all day, Mr. Chairman, about what we are trying to do. We are trying to lower the cost of prescription drugs, but we have to go back to this ObamaCare debate.

Republicans control the Senate. They are not going to bring it up. The President is not going to sign the bill. It is instructional to have this debate. We understand it. We will eventually come back, and we will address these prescription drug bills. We will get there, but we have to go through this exercise. I understand that.

The three bills that we could vote on and pass right now, probably on a suspension calendar and a voice vote, would be the three prescription drug bills that are part of this package. Those are the CREATES Act, the Protecting Consumers' Access to Generic Drugs Act, and the Bringing Low-cost Options and Competition while Keeping Incentives for New Generics Act, called the BLOCKING Act.

That is what we could be doing today, that and some other things. We hope that what we will be addressing will make major changes in affordability, transparency, and the like.

My colleagues also point out the numerous votes to repeal or replace parts of ObamaCare. I am proud to say I voted for all of them. The facts state that a lot of Democrats supported these, to fundamentally change provisions of ObamaCare.

In fact, 30 of the bills my friends are citing were signed into law. Twenty-one of those bills were signed into law by President Obama. Of the 30 that were signed into law, Speaker Pelosi voted ``yes'' on 19 of them. These are part of the 60 bills that would repeal and replace, and we have 21, and 19 were voted for by Speaker Pelosi. Leader Hoyer voted ``yes'' on 21 of them. My friend Chairman Pallone voted on 20 of them.

Here are the examples that we want to lay out: repealing the unworkable and unsustainable CLASS Act, rescinding billions of dollars for the failed ObamaCare co-op program, delaying the Cadillac tax and medical device tax, cutting funding to the Independent Payment Advisory Board, providing regulatory and financial relief from ObamaCare's requirements for small business and independent contractors, requiring accurate income verification before disbursing subsidies to ObamaCare exchanges, and modifying eligibility for ObamaCare exchange subsidies.

We can have this tit for tat, Mr. Chairman, and they will still want to defend ObamaCare. We will always say that the private market is better to provide lower cost and rapid response. It is an ideological fight.

We will get through this debate. We will eventually come back and address these prescription drug issues that, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we probably would pass on a voice vote once we return to this.

I thank my colleagues. I have great respect for my colleague from Vermont. He is a very sincere and good friend. We look forward to debating this more in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is hard to sell a lemon, no matter how much you give in advertising. That is kind of the basis of our opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, as you heard me say in the last debate, in my congressional district, people didn't want to be forced to buy something that was too high, that was unaffordable, that the deductibles were too high, and that we in Washington mandated that they have to buy.

Now we see a period where, in essence, people have a few more choices because of the waiver system, the 1332s. We see people flocking away from

ObamaCare plans to 1332 waivers within the States, which we think is a good deal.

Part of the debate on this is: Let's pump more money in and maybe these people will stay in these failed ObamaCare plans. We reject that. We reject it based upon what we have done with Medicare Advantage and Medicare part D.

The executive branch has said: Let's spend the same amount of money that we do for Medicare part D and Medicare Advantage, which have much higher enrollment than the ObamaCare exchanges.

So we think that is appropriate. We do think that, with $100 million or more to try to get people to buy a product and you see enrollment go down, that is not a good use of money.

Mr. Chair, with that, we would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't know my colleague very well, but I think it is instructive to our citizens as a whole that Members come from across this great land and have a lot of different issues. I think it is instructive that even Members of Congress can be fighting illnesses and need lifesaving medicine to do that.

I don't think we are fundamentally opposed to the amendment. We don't think it does exactly what the author is claiming it will do.

In this package, in this bill, it is not, obviously, going to go anywhere because the President is not going to sign this bill. It is not going to go through the Senate.

Mr. Chair, I would encourage my colleague to come back and visit with us so that we start moving something that can get bipartisan agreement that I think would be very instructive in looking at this as an addition.

Now, I am speaking for myself, not for the ranking member of the full committee, because the gentleman is right that we need to have information. And when government is helpful in creating the initial science that then goes over to the private sector, that then goes to creating blockbuster drugs, then we should know, kind of, the skin in the game, Mr. Chairman, and how much that is due to good Federal policy by not just legislators, but also our agencies that help push that research by NIH or the CDC or the National Cancer Institute.

Had this bill been brought and the three prescription drug transparency lower cost options been brought to the floor, as I said before--and I am not going to restate this every amendment debate--but we probably would have had a voice vote and we could have gone out for dinner. But it is attached to the ObamaCare rescue mission, which we think the public has already rejected.

So we will get through this process, but I would encourage my colleague to join with the chairman of the committee and Republicans in looking at what we can do on this provision in the future.

Mr. Chair, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I would reserve the balance of my time unless my colleague yielded back.

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

Again, I appreciate my colleague coming down to the floor, especially when, in his opening statement, he says he wants drug costs to go down now.

It is not going to happen now because it is in a package that is not going to be accepted by the Senate and the President is not going to sign.

So, if we really want drug prices to go down now, we would have done what we did out of the full committee. We would have packaged this up with H.R. 965, the CREATES Act, which is a bipartisan agreement that is part of this bill, which would penalize branded drugmakers that withhold samples from generic manufacturers.

We would have brought to the floor, either separately or in a package, H.R. 1499, the Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act, bipartisan out of the committee. This would ban pay-for-delay agreements, which are a problem.

And we would have brought up H.R. 938, the Bringing Low-cost Options and Competition while Keeping Incentives for New Generics, which is called the BLOCKING Act, which would limit the first-approved generic maker's ability to stall another rival's launch.

I think we all want to get there. I think we will get there. We still are going to go through this process. But, make no mistake, this is not going to be signed into law that we can go down to the White House for a ceremony.

Again, I would encourage my colleagues to work with the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend Frank Pallone, and we can address this amendment and other processes and hopefully bring the bipartisan bill to the floor that would address a lot of other colleagues' concerns and really work on a bipartisan agreement that, then, by that bipartisan approach, the Senate would have to really look at seriously, and, hopefully, we would convince the President to sign the bill.

I am just a simple man from southern Illinois, taught high school civics: two Chambers, President has got to sign the bill. Sometimes when we use all this time, it is for other purposes than really trying to have a bill become law.

So, with that, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, obviously, I rise in opposition to this, and I understand my colleague from Florida's great expertise in this area and served in the previous administration.

But when you have to subsidize a plan--there are a couple of problems. First of all, before ObamaCare came into being, or the Affordable Care Act--I am not trying to be disrespectful--insurance was regulated by States. The new law yanked that away from States to the point where they created a system of mandatory coverage that was unaffordable.

So then part of the plan was, well, we need to subsidize these plans because, actuarially, they are not going to work without government intervention.

Now, the Court case on this, we thought--and actually, I guess the Court case is still pending. Can the Federal Government force someone to buy something they don't want to buy? And we probably will hear another ruling on that. Initially, they said, yeah.

The real debate shifted to: Does the Federal Government have the power to tax, versus do you have the power to force someone to buy something they don't want to buy?

So the Supreme Court, in that ruling, said, since the Federal Government has the power to tax, this is really a tax; then, yeah, we can do this.

So then we had the rollout. And the rollout, I think, in the public's eye, as a whole--first, due to the delay because of the computer system, the network couldn't manage it. And then, just the cost.

As I said before, premiums way too high; deductibles too high; people forced to buy an insurance product that they could not use.

People would go in and say, oh, I got coverage. Okay. But your coverage is you still got to pay the first $10,000 in deductible. And people say, what? That is not very good insurance.

Well, that is what we created in this national healthcare delivery system.

The public rendered judgment, as they do, through the political process. Republicans came back into control.

Now, what we are trying to do is return to federalism. We have returned to States' regulation of insurance; provide more options to consumers. That is what is occurring now, so the higher cost or the costs are going down. In fact, I think there was a projection that 30 percent--there was 30 percent increases until this last cycle, when there was a 3 percent increase. Why?

Well, because, under the law, there are 1332 waivers which allow States to present another package; and you see our citizens, our constituents, voting with their feet to go to these State-based plans. That is a good thing.

So we are trying--we don't want to turn the clock back again. So that is why I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentlewoman's amendment. Although brought well-intentioned and lovingly, I know.

Mr. Chairman, I reject that. I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 9.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, it is, again, great to be here this morning. I appreciate Speaker Pelosi coming down and talking about bipartisan solutions and working together.

Obviously, on this piece of legislation, I think the terminology was demanding a plan for the administration. Well, that assumes that the administration would sign this bill. That also assumes that the Senate would pass this bill. Even if the President would sign a bill that he doesn't want to enact, he would probably then veto the bill he just signed. Then we would sustain his veto.

If we want to move forward, then we want to do things that can get through

the Senate and get to the President's desk. That is why, all afternoon yesterday, we talked about--and this amendment has some of those issues in it--adaptation, resiliency, grid modernization, and how do you adapt.

We appreciate the intent on which this amendment is being brought forward.

On another cautionary note, in the Paris accord, when it talks about addressing loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change, it is referring to the Paris accord's provision for developing countries. That accord doesn't have provisions for developed countries.

Maybe as things move forward with my colleague from New Jersey, we can make sure we address that appropriately.

We would like to have these studies done before we go into international agreements when we don't know how they are going to respond, versus after the fact, just like the cart before the horse. Then we will know that this is a good deal, that we should do this, or maybe that we shouldn't.

We had a couple of amendments last night that talked about all the bad aspects but none of the positive aspects. We also had a couple that said let's look at the good and the bad.

I would suggest that, in an amendment, there may be some areas of the country in which the infrastructure is not going to be harmed. In fact, an area of the country might even benefit from these changes.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this is the perfect example of an amendment that, as we move something forward that might be able to be considered by the Senate and signed by the President, I think we would be very interested in dealing with.

Although, I guess I am a little confused. The amendment says we don't want to be technologically specific, although you mentioned the benefits of carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, which is an amendment we had in the committee to try to say these are some good technologies we ought to consider.

A lot of folks on our side have been excited about the energy renaissance, the ability to recover more oil. We know the great stories of Texas and the ability to capture carbon and sequester it with utilization for money to help deal with other issues.

I think when we move in the direction of a bill that we plan to get through the Senate and the House, we should keep our communications open because I think there are some bipartisan solutions.

The Republicans have always talked about conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This is part of the innovation package.

We also have advanced nuclear in that package. We also have pump storage and batteries in that package. I think there are opportunities here.

We offered, as I said, in the committee, the value of nuclear and advanced nuclear energy, hydropower, carbon capture, and the production and export of natural gas. Part of my portfolio of volunteer activities is in the Eastern European bloc. Obviously, the ability to export natural gas has been a boon to these countries that don't want to be enslaved to Russian natural gas.

Again, there are things we can do. When we talk about innovation necessary to produce a strong economy, energy security, and lower emissions, we have to focus on the benefits of these technologies. While I can agree with the idea of this amendment, I think it falls short of what is necessary for Congress to assist our priorities.

Mr. Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working with my colleague in the future, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, we really don't need a Paris Agreement to meet substantial changes in the carbon dioxide, or, as my colleague was speaking, she was really referring to the Clean Air Act and the four criteria pollutants that we have so aggressively addressed since 1992.

Having said that, what is better for the poor and the downtrodden is to have a job. What is better for their health and economic opportunity is to have a job. What also helps is that they have a good paying job that provides great healthcare benefits.

So, from 2015 to 2018, out of the industrialized countries, the United States is the number one reducer of carbon dioxide--number one. We didn't have to do it with all these international accords. We do it through innovation, technology, and advancement.

But carbon dioxide emissions went up last year. That is a known fact. The question is why. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have one of the best economies that I have ever served in in the House of Representatives, where there are help wanted signs all over the place.

As the manufacturing sector grows, there is a need to address these emissions. That is why Republicans continue to look forward to the day when we can join with our Democratic colleagues on conservation, innovation, and adaptation, moving some bills and processes through the floor that will be received well in the Senate and to the President's desk.

I think, rather than focus on the finding, we should debate bipartisan solutions such as boosting research, advanced technologies, and promoting innovation. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, to my colleague, and I appreciate it. She has me at a disadvantage because I have a huge ag district, 33 counties in southern Illinois, more pigs than people. I have corn, beans, and the like, so we appreciate this; and we appreciate this amendment because of the voluntary action of it and trying to incentivize and appreciate what our agriculture community has done because, as you know, other proposals out there that are debated in Washington might have some severe effects on agriculture.

I also want to take this time to say we did a lot in the last Congress. I think the misnomer is that if we don't say ``climate change'' and we move good public policy, that we haven't done anything.

Through the House, we passed:

The Energy Efficient Government Technology Act; that was actually voice voted and sponsored by Anna Eshoo from California;

Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, Bob Latta from Ohio;

Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which this is another thing we did in the last Congress;

Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, Pete Olson from Texas;

Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, the SENSE Act;

Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act by Bill Johnson;

Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2017, another bill to reauthorize the West Valley Act.

Of course, I am a proud sponsor, with a huge bipartisan vote, for what was H.R. 3053, which was how do you deal with the nuclear waste provision.

So we actually moved a lot of bills in the last Congress, and many of those bills were in a bipartisan manner.

Yes, we do not carry the mantle of ``Paris'' or ``climate,'' but not everything has to be a subtitle of that major provision, especially if you are doing what we are trying to do in the House, which is bring to the floor bills in a bipartisan manner.

Conservation, that would be like energy efficiency, new source review, forest management practices. Being from Washington State, the gentlewoman understands the forest issues and the concerns that we do more forest management practices. Maybe some of our fires would be less so.

Innovation; advanced nuclear power; carbon capture; utilization; sequestration, which we spoke about in an amendment previously; and also pump storage batteries.

Also, from Washington State, the gentlewoman knows the benefits of hydropower, and if we can pump that water back up and have a continuous cycle, that is a pretty green use of power.

Adaptation, grid modernization, resiliency, and things on GMO crops, crops that can change if the environment is changing, if the growing cycles change. Right now we have drought-resistant corn. We might have to have corn that grows in wetter conditions. That is all part of the adaptation that we need to talk about.

So I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the chance to discuss these issues. I support voluntary action. The idea of this amendment will be better served focusing on examining the costs of these commitments, like some of our Republican amendments try to do, as we move this bill outside of the committee.

I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague bringing that up. I taught high school for 4 years, so education is key.

This whole provision of moving to the Paris accord was done without education of the Members of Congress. It was an executive branch decision.

We can debate whether the President had the authority or didn't have the authority, but we think what happened was that there was not total buy-in. Had it been presented as an agreement or had it been presented as a treaty, it wouldn't have passed either Chamber.

I do agree that education is very, very important. However, I also believe in local control. Republicans will always have a challenge with the Federal Government directing, dictating, and telling our local schools what their curriculum should be.

Mr. Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, we appreciate this amendment. A lot of these amendments are putting the cart before the horse. It would have been interesting to have these debates about resiliency and efficiencies prior to the administration going into the Paris accord. You do the research first and then you make a decision.

Now what we are trying to do is say, okay, we have this Paris accord that the President has stepped away from, so now let's evaluate what impacts are happening.

We did accept an amendment yesterday in this debate to look at both positive and negative aspects, which I think is a fair balance. There are going to be some areas of the country that are going to benefit; there are going to be some areas of the country that are going to be disadvantaged. So I think that is helpful in this debate.

There is a lot of talk about an infrastructure bill coming up. We hope that would be something we would move in a bipartisan manner. I know that it is always going to be asked how to pay for it.

I am willing to make the tough calls on how to pay for it. But in that infrastructure bill, it would be great if the resiliency of communities and these concerns that are being addressed could be wrapped up in something like that.

Again, for this bill, Leader McConnell just said on the floor that they are not going to address it. Even if they did, the President wouldn't sign it.

We will get to a point in time in this Congress when we will work together.

Republicans believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This is part of the adaptation portfolio, and we look forward to working with you as we move forward.

This amendment does nothing to affect CO2 reductions, so I will oppose the amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, again, first of all, I appreciate my colleague, one whom I have gotten a chance to know. I look forward to working with him on some issues down the road.

I want to take this time to kind of reject the premise that nothing has been done. In the debate a little while ago, I mentioned the 15 or 20 bills that had passed the House in a bipartisan manner. These were signed into law, a lot of the hydroelectric extensions in H.R. 2122 and H.R. 2292 to extend the project of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission involving the Cannonsville dam. Hydroelectric power is clean, renewable. I can go through a whole list of things that were done.

As I said in debate earlier, just because we don't put the stamp of ``Paris'' or ``climate change'' on a piece of legislation doesn't mean that it is not going to help reduce our carbon exposure. In fact, our country has the largest reduction of CO2 of any industrialized nation from 2015 to 2018.

Having said that, I also would readily admit, and the Chair has heard me say this many times, that in 2019, our emissions went up. But that was because we have a thriving economy with more manufacturing. So this debate is still very important.

This amendment suggests that the measures that the Obama administration were putting in place to meet the commitments in the Paris Agreement were affordable. A lot of us would reject that premise when you look at the cost per kilowatt hour of major generation, baseload versus the green.

We have always tried to be kind of an all-of-the-above. Actually, in part of my congressional district, which is very large, I have one of the biggest wind farms in Illinois. That is in the Champaign County, Vermilion County, Ford County area in southern Illinois.

Also, solar power. Because of the actions our State General Assembly has done, we have a lot of solar power construction going on in the State of Illinois. An all-of-the-above approach is what we would hope for.

We look forward to the time when this, too, shall pass, this debate on this bill, which will then go to the Senate and die, and then we work back with my friends in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Chairman Engel is also on the Energy and Commerce Committee, so he knows that we will eventually get to the aspect where we can move in a bipartisan manner.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I also thank my colleague for his service. I, too, served in the Army infantry during the Cold War. They are a band of brothers, and we do appreciate his service to the country.

Also, I do appreciate that the National Defense Authorization Act, passed in the last Congress, has been helpful. That is another example of, it

wasn't couched in climate change, but it was couched in national defense. That is where, again, I will continue to make the arguments and the comments that things have been going on. I don't want to read the first list of bills and stuff that we have passed over the last Congress.

The military is also looking at small modular nuclear reactors in some isolated locations. That will be part of the issues in the innovation area that Republicans could be very, very supportive of. We look forward to having those debates.

I also know forward operating bases of solar technology and of solar power help keep our warfighters prepared and able to communicate. It is just the smart thing to do versus trying to haul crude oil or generators and stuff to places where it would not be in the best interest of our warfighters to have.

So the focus is good. The Republicans, again, believe in conservation, innovation, and adaptation. When we move a bill that will get a chance to be heard by the Senate and that we work together, the goal would be to get something on the President's desk that he will sign. This is not the venue, because the Senate is not going to move it and the President is not going to sign it. But I would encourage my colleagues to stay engaged, not just with the Armed Services Committee, but the Energy and Commerce Committee, and colleagues on this side because I do think there is merit to the debate. Acknowledgement of what the Department of Defense has done was focused on by the previous Commander in Chief.

The Paris climate mandates instituted by the Obama administration through the Paris Agreement and the outdated executive order would have increased energy prices and wasted taxpayer dollars. As a result, we cannot support the amendment that would condone and reinstitute some of these costly measures.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will read into the Record a statement. This is from the International Energy Agency, Global Energy and CO2 Status Report 2018, published March of 2019, so it is pretty much fresh off the press. It addresses some of these issues that I have mentioned during this debate today about how we have been doing things; how, overall, missions are decreasing; and how public policy has helped, and the like.

This is on page 10: ``In the United States, the emission reductions seen in 2017 were reversed with an increase of 3.1 percent in CO2 emissions in 2018.''

That is what we addressed about the economy going up, more CO2 emissions.

``Despite this increase, emissions in the United States remain around their 1990 levels, 14 percent and 800 metric tons of CO2 below their peak in 2000. This is the largest absolute decline among all countries since 2000.''

So I think that is instructive when we are here debating a bill that is not going to be reviewed by the Senate and the President is not going to sign it.

We look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce on things that we can do to work together to even make better strides than what we already have in this country.

We don't get a lot of credit because we don't couch it in, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, ``climate change,'' ``Paris accord.''

But, you know, facts are important, data is important, and the Energy Information Agency is an independent agency underneath the Department of Commerce, so it is evaluating all countries and all emissions.

Republicans believe in conservation, which would be energy efficiency, new source review, force management, innovation, advanced nuclear power, carbon capture, sequestration, utilization.

To the colleague who brought the amendment up, I don't believe coal will be dead. I think if we bring technology and we use carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration and get it captured, we can still have a coal mining sector. We can still have energy electricity generated by coal. I hope so, because I am from a coal mining region, and I am not going to walk away from the jobs in southern Illinois.

And the adaptation which we have had a lot of debate about today, which is grid modernization, resiliency, crops, and the like.

The amendment of my colleague is opposite to what Dr. Burgess and I tried to do in the committee when we marked up this bill. We wanted to have the research and the analysis done before we go back to a climate agreement.

I mean, what good does it do if you go to an agreement and then you find that jobs have been lost, wages have gone down? It is too late. You are in the agreement.

So let's do the research prior, which was our amendment, Dr. Burgess and I--it wasn't made in order for the floor----to say let's do this research.

So if we are going to move and go back into the climate Paris accord, if we are going to affect jobs in the economy negatively, we should know that beforehand. This amendment does not do that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is the first time I have been directed to my region of the State of Illinois, and I appreciate it.

Illinois has 102 counties. I represent 33 of those, or parts of 33, so it is a little different than north of I-80, as the Chairman knows and as does the author of this amendment. And, of course, you had me at a disadvantage because I have great kinship and friendship with my colleague who is offering this amendment.

I would pause to say sometimes we have a hard time defining ``clean.''

What is clean energy? For me, some of this debate is no CO2 or very limited CO2 emissions. I think that is in the Paris accord, in the climate change, global warming debate. It is all about CO2. We have some colleagues come here and talk about the four criteria pollutants and stuff, but this is really about CO2.

So we also think not just solar, but we ought to make sure we do geothermal provisions. We ought to look at pump storage provisions. We should do the hydroelectric provisions.

As my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, the Chicagoland area of Illinois has the largest production of electricity through the use of nuclear power--six locations, 11 reactors. How much does it emit of CO2 into the atmosphere? Zero. Major baseload energy that is beneficial in this debate, because we can't meet these standards unless we have some major generation, some major baseload.

So I think if we look forward to moving forward with a bill that would have a chance to move to the Senate floor that we eventually want to get to the President, we actually look forward to working with my colleagues on provisions and helping us grapple with the definition of clean.

If the definition is little to no CO2 emissions, solar is great; wind is great. They are small parts of a large portfolio of nuclear energy and hydroelectric, which are the predominant clean energy electricity producers if that definition is CO2.

So, with that, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, respectfully.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I will close after the gentlewoman yields back.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't get a chance to come down during the debate on the underlying bill, and the committee, of course, raised this issue.

The hope is that the President is going to sign a bill to go back into an agreement that he already decided to get out of. So, when the statement is made--it only reverses the President's action if the President signs the bill. The President is not going to sign this bill.

So why are we here? Why are we spending a whole week? I understand we need to get this climate debate off our chest and eventually move forward, and I hope we will do that in a bipartisan manner.

As to the amendment that we are debating here, not bad, I think, trying to understand the green jobs that will occur. But I think those of us from fossil fuel areas, coal mining areas, marginal oil, well, we would probably like to see an evaluation of job losses that could occur as part of this.

They are going to tout the job creation. Let's look at the areas--and they touted rural America. Let's look at the areas where coal mines will close, coal-fired power plants will close, and the economic impact that will be impacted there.

We are pretty excited about working with the Energy and Commerce Committee on, as is, I think, the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, conservation, innovation, adaption. Our focus is going to be: Let's affect the carbon dioxide emissions without raising energy costs and slowing the economic activity.

I think we have one of the best economies that I have ever served in, and we do have an increase in carbon dioxide this last year because the economic activity is so great.

So if you believe that, which is true, the reverse would be, if you delay and raise energy costs, you could really hurt economic growth.

Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I will close after my colleague yields back her time.

I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.

Listen, in the transmission world, other than Texas, no State is alone. California is in the Western interconnect. So we have great support for States' rights, but decisions made by California will affect Nevada and will affect Arizona.

For example, we have seen how decisions in some areas actually benefit the fossil energy in other areas, such as support of fossil and nuclear power in Arizona for California's electricity requirements.

The basic underlying amendment really does nothing to address things that we would like to support--conservation, innovation, adaption-- trying to, in a bipartisan approach, address the real issue, which is how do we reduce carbon dioxide emissions in a way that protects the economy, grows the economy. We also feel that our citizens are better served when they have good paying jobs and they are working versus a risk of not doing that if you move down an unchecked path.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I also thank Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon and, actually, Congresswoman Plaskett. I was able to visit the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico during the last hurricane, and it was devastating. I appreciate the hospitality shown in difficult times.

Madam Chair, while this is a ``let's do an evaluation of good and bad,'' versus one of the amendments we talked about earlier, I am pleased to support it.

The only caveat we would say is that we would rather have these reports done prior to making major decisions versus making a decision and then seeing how it is going to impact. But I am pleased to support it, and I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it forward.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I will close after the gentleman closes. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, bravo for our States and bravo for our communities. I think the only problem I have with the amendment is you seem to have to believe that the United States has to be involved in an international agreement for us to lead. We are the largest carbon reducer since 2015 in the world.

I think the Energy and Commerce Committee over the last Congress has led with bipartisan solutions that have come to the floor. That is where we need to get to eventually, instead of the ``he said, she said,'' point fingers, ``you are bad.''

What can we do that gets across to the Senate? What can we do to get it to the President's desk? Moving an amendment and a bill that says, ``Mr. President, you got out of the Paris accord, now sign this bill to undo what you just did,'' no one believes he is going to sign that.

We also know that even if he vetoes that bill, we will be able to sustain it on this side.

We look forward to doing things that we did in the last Congress. We can address carbon capture, sequestration, utilization; advanced nuclear reforms; hydropower; and clean natural gas, which has also enhanced our national security; and energy efficiency.

Republicans are willing to work with my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee on conservation, things like energy efficiency, new source review, and forest management. We are willing to talk about innovation, things like advanced nuclear power, as I mentioned; carbon capture, utilization, sequestration, pumped storage; battery technology through research and development; adaptation addressing the grid, adapting to the climate change issues; resiliency of our communities; genetically modified crops, if we have weather conditions or drier conditions.

There are things that we think we can move to address this debate that could get through the Senate and could get to the President's desk, but haranguing and harassing a President who has already decided to leave the accord and think he is going to sign a bill is just not going to happen. That is why I oppose this amendment.

I disagree with the basic premise of the amendment. I agree that communities are doing great things. States are leading. When you argue that States are leading, that is contrary to your argument that we have to lead. If the States and local communities are doing it, why does it take the Federal Government to do that?

We don't have to bash to work together and move a policy forward.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.