Floor Statements

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague, my friend from Pennsylvania, for calling attention to this concern that you raised.

In our open, deliberative process which we had in the markup, this was added as an amendment to the bill by my friends on the other side. This was prior to the President's rollout of his working group, prior to the President's stated concern about the sensitive nature of this information; and so it is one of the few times I would agree with the President that this information is very, very sensitive. So it might have been inappropriate at that time to accept this portion of the bill.

In our view, protecting this information, especially keeping it away from terrorists, is of utmost concern; and I want to assure you that this will be our guiding principle as we consider whether to include section 106 or any version of it in the final draft of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, well, it is great to be here on the floor with my friends as we talk about moving pieces of legislation. It is unfortunate that we are no longer a debating society; we are just a statement society, whether we are going back to what is true and right in language of the bill or what is not.

Let me talk to folks about how we got to this position.

Upon becoming subcommittee chairman in the last Congress, I talked to members of my committee and staff and I said, There is no perfect piece of legislation. There is no perfect piece of law. What are some things that we can fix to make this process go better?

And it wasn't just our ideas; we went to the States. The States have a huge responsibility. And I think if people watched the body of information of what is coming out of our committee, we have given a lot of deference to the States because they are the ones who live closest to these locations. So we bring in the Council of the States, the Environmental Council of the States and all the stakeholders and we say, What is it about the Federal law that drives you crazy and if we fixed it would make your life better? Hence, these three pieces of legislation that have been rolled into one bill to make it to the floor.

The Reducing Excessive Deadline Obligations Act, it allows the EPA to review regulations on solid waste disposal only when necessary. You know what the law says; regardless if the law works or not, you have to review it every 3 years. And you know what happens when that law is in there; regardless if it works, regardless if there are no complaints, you have to review it. So that is ripe for litigation. You don't do it within the time line, whether you need to or not, let's sue and settle. Let's do something.

So all we are saying is, if the law works, if the regulations are good, if there are no complaints, don't have an automatic time line of having to review it in 3 years. The States said, Yes, we would like that because we are spending more time.

Part of the problem with the Superfund is huge amounts of money go to

litigation. Surprise, surprise. We want to get money away from litigation to remediation. That is all we are trying to do.

The bill also requires EPA, prior to developing new financial responsibility requirements--and that is the key. What is a financial responsibility requirement? What do you have to have available if you are going to do this site and in case something goes wrong and you need cleanup? What are the financial requirements? What is the bonding you need? All we are saying is don't change the rules. And if you are going to change the rules for financial bonding while the process and the site is being operated, wouldn't it be good to talk to the States and let people know that the Federal Government is going to change the rules in the operation of a new site? The States said, Good idea. You ought to look at that.

One other part of the bill is the Federal and State Partnership for Environmental Protection Act of 2013, which requires the EPA to consult with States when undergoing a removal action. So usually what happens at a Superfund site, the Federal Government gets involved. They are going to help do the majority of the cleanup. But guess who has the long-term observation and administration costs of the site? The States do. All we are saying is, if we are going to start to remediate in a State, let's have the State sit down and work with the EPA so the State knows its long-term costs. Pretty simple.

And the last one, which I always find pretty amazing that my friends on the other side are arguing about, protecting the Federal Government to pollute. All we are saying is, when the Federal Government has polluted a site, the Federal Government ought to clean it up. We make everyone else do it. We hold everyone else responsible. But no, if the Federal Government has polluted, we give them immunity. Sovereign immunity. They don't have to do anything. So this law says that it is about time the Federal Government comply with the same laws that States do and other individuals do.

This is a position my colleagues have had for many, many years. And of all the portions of this bill that I thought that they would be all for is moving this position that the Federal Government should comply with the same laws as everyone else does. And for my colleagues on the other side to protect governmental polluters I just find is unbelievable.

So the process was good. We had hearings. We had markups. We had amendments agreed to. I am proud of my colleagues in bringing these bills to the floor. I am glad of the participation by the States, and I look forward to the moving of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, for the last few years, Ukraine has been working towards the signing of an association agreement with the European Union to increase economic and political ties with the bloc and to solidify democratic values and principles. The association agreement was to have been signed on November 28 through 29 at an Eastern Partnership Summit meeting in Vilnius.

On November 21, the Cabinet of Ministers in Ukraine unilaterally suspended negotiations with the European Union due to excessive pressure from Russia. Outraged by this, Ukrainians began to protest by creating European squares, or Euromaidans, across the country, including the capital of Kiev. In the early morning of November 30, the Ukrainian Government sent special forces to clear the Euromaidan in Kiev by using physical force and tear gas, resulting in many protesters and journalists with traumatic injuries and several still who are unaccounted for.

In response to the unprecedented use of force against peaceful protesters in Ukraine's history, several high-ranking deputies and officials in the governing party defected from the Party of Regions. Since then, protests have continued with a reported 1 million Ukrainians taking to the streets on December 1. Every Sunday since has brought at least 50,000 to the Euromaidan.

In the early morning of December 11, special forces, using chain saws and metal batons, broke through many makeshift barricades made of park benches and other available materials in order to encircle thousands of peaceful protesters on the Euromaidan in Kiev. In a 9-hour standoff with security forces, peaceful protesters on the Euromaidan stood their ground, singing the national anthem and praying every hour with local churches that were ringing their bells in support of the protesters.

In 2013, violence was used against more than 100 journalists in Ukraine, with almost half of the incidents occurring in December. On December 25, a well-known and respected Ukrainian journalist and civic activist, Tetyana Chornovol, was brutally beaten on her way home. Protest leaders tie her beating to her anti-regime reporting. Her severely bruised face is now used as a symbol of government repression.

The United States calls on the Ukrainian Government to respect Ukrainians' freedom of speech, their right to free assembly; and it calls on them to refrain from using force against peaceful protesters.

Mr. Speaker, I have been watching the live feed online of the protest in Kiev, and I would like to encourage Ukrainians to stand firm and continue to voice their opinions. I also call upon the Ukrainian Government to respect the Ukrainians' right to free assembly and to refrain from using force against peaceful protesters.

I again urge Ukraine to look toward the West for their future success as the success of their nation depends upon democratic policies and freedom. The door is still open. Strengthening ties with Russia will only bring more of the same desolation, disunity, frustration, distrust, and anger that has been so prevalent in the past.

Ukraine, the whole world is watching.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the recent actions taken by the Ukrainian Government on its own citizens. A couple weeks ago, I stood here hopeful, urging their government to look westward as they entered the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius. While Georgia and Moldova have moved forward in signing association agreements with the European Union, the Government of Ukraine failed to sign this agreement. This move is disappointing and even more so for the Ukrainian citizens who long for closer ties with Europe.

Due to President Yanukovych's lack of action, Ukrainians have taken to the streets in protest and have been met with extreme brutality. I join with the State Department in urging the Ukrainian Government to respect the rights of its people and allow freedom of expression and assembly. Ukraine should not bully or take violent action if they desire to be a peaceful, democratic nation.

I will continue to support the citizens of Ukraine as they pursue democracy and freedom in their country. It is my wish that Ukraine will seek other means of integration with Europe and not fall to demands and pressure from Russia. It is time to look to the future, not to the Soviet-style rule that has plagued their past for countless years.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud my colleague and fellow subcommittee chairman on Energy and Commerce for helping bringing H.R. 1900 to the floor. This legislation will help ensure that the key elements of our critical infrastructure will be improved and constructed on a timely and predictable basis. This is a goal we all can and should support.

On a closely related subject, I too wanted to associate myself with Chairman Whitfield's recent statement regarding the growing tendency among certain States to engage in obstructionist tactics aimed at key infrastructure projects. In some cases, States have even used federally delegated authority to block federally approved projects. Let me say again that States have used federally delegated authority to block federally approved projects.

The most prominent example is the use of the Clean Water Act to deny otherwise routine permits and approvals. As my colleague suggested, we have legislated on that issue previously, but our clear intent in doing so was frustrated in the court system. It may well be that we may need to address this issue further, and I stand ready to work with my colleague to do so.

In other instances, States have tried to use their authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act to impose consistency requirements on federally approved projects, even when those projects have already been found to be consistent with the States' Coastal Management Plan. This is clearly taking a second bite at the apple.

The law is abundantly clear that a State has no authority to review an existing project a second time if it underwent a previous consistency review. Only in the event that there is an applicable program change or a significant alteration in the nature of the facility would a State ever be entitled to render a second consistency determination.

For this reason, I see no need to legislate on that subject at this time, but I am well aware that even the clearest of statutory provisions can sometimes be distorted by determined States, so I will join with my colleague, Chairman Whitfield, to keep a watchful eye on this situation.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I support passage of H.R. 1900.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time to talk about some European issues, especially in eastern Europe.

First, I want to talk about the country of Belarus. Three years after the brutal and bloody crackdown on peaceful demonstrators after the December 10 presidential elections, nine political prisoners remain behind bars under deplorable conditions in Belarus. This includes Nikolai Statkevich, who ran against Lukashenko in 2010; Ales Bialiatski, the head of Viasna, a

human rights organization; and Mikalai Autukhovich, who sliced open his stomach in September to protest his poor treatment by prison guards. While the regime recently released three political activists--Zmitser Dashkevich, Aliaksandr Frantskevich, and Pavel Seviarynets--it continues to restrict their freedom of movement and activities.

The general human rights situation in Belarus also continues to deteriorate. Recent laws passed to regulate demonstrations and political information have greatly curtailed freedom of assembly, and independent journalists and political activists are under a constant threat of intimidation and arbitrary detention. In October, the regime made amendments to the Electoral Code designed to undermine the ability of opposition candidates to receive funding and compete in the 2014 local elections.

The EU voted in October to expand sanctions on the Lukashenko regime for an additional year citing the regime's failure to release or effectively rehabilitate political prisoners and its disregard for human rights or democratic principles in their decision making. The United States should continue to work with the European Union to remain consolidated, impose economic sanctions, and have a single plan of action regarding the promotion of dramatic processes in Belarus.

Tensions with Russia increased when the Lukashenko regime arrested Vladislav Baumgertner, a Russian citizen who is the head of a major Russian potash firm. The move was in retaliation for this firm dropping its joint venture with a local Belorussian potash firm, resulting in a steep drop in the commodity price and harming the Belarus economy. This began an ongoing ``potash war'' with Russia. Meanwhile, negotiations to put a Russian airbase in Belarus have proved controversial and allowed opposition parties an opening to criticize the regime and focus attention on national independence and sovereignty issues. The United States should continue to support Belorussian citizens as they fight to maintain their sovereignty.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Eastern Partnership. On November 28 through 29, just coming up soon, the European Union will host the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The goal of the event is to promote closer ties between the EU and its eastern neighbors and, in particular, to further the progress on association agreements with Georgia, Moldova, and the Ukraine. The governments of these countries have worked for years to meet conditions for signing the agreements, and the summit is viewed as an historic step in European integration for these countries.

Russia has responded to the Eastern Partnership initiative by applying intense pressure on these countries to abandon EU engagement and join a Russian-led Eurasian union instead. Russia has started erecting barbed wire fences on Georgian territory, prompting a stern rebuke from the EU condemning the action and calling for their removal. In Moldova, Russia has resorted to its tactics of banning Moldova wine imports and threatening to cut off gas during the winter months. Russia has banned dairy products from Lithuania and certain chocolate products from the Ukraine and threatened both countries with disruption or price hikes on gas supplies. The EU has warned Russia to stop these actions, and the U.S. should join in the condemnation of Russia's aggressive behavior towards the sovereignty of nations on its border.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time for talking about these emerging democracies in eastern Europe, the threat that still continues, and the importance of the United States Government being involved in promoting democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, on October 27, I was honored to observe the recent presidential elections in the Republic of Georgia in which Giorgi Margvelashvili was elected.

It was characterized by the International Republican Institute as ``calm and . . . with a substantial reduction of complaints filed with the election commission.''

The President was elected with a 62 percent vote in an election that was described also as an important milestone in Georgia's democratic development.

In keeping with this promise to step down following the election, Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili appointed a successor, Irakli Garibashvili, on November 2. He was most recently the Minister of Interior appointed by the Prime Minister after the Georgia Dream Coalition's victory in the 2012 parliamentary elections. Prior to his work in government, he headed Mr. Ivanishvili's charitable organization Cartu. He holds a graduate degree from the University of Paris, Sorbonne; and I was pleased to visit the country, the Republic of Georgia, and be involved in the democratic process and principles.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share two stories with you.

I have a 30-year-old self-employed farmer. He had a major medical plan with a $2,500 deductible and paid 80 percent. He paid $122.17 a month. This plan was canceled. To get a plan now with a $6,000 deductible and pay 80 percent, it is $259.02 a month, but it will cover pediatric, dental, and maternity. He is an individual bachelor, self- employed. He is single and a male. His point is, ``I had a plan. I liked it. The President said I could keep it. That was a lie.''

I also want to share the story of Tara, Eric, and Ky Manzano. They are both employed with a son. Their premium is doubling. They are not sure how they will be able to save for college for Ky and pay for this insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many accomplishments of Penny Cate as she retires on December 16th.

An honors graduate of the University of Maryland and Georgetown University, Penny began her career in public service with the United States Department of Agriculture in 1974. In 1979, she started working as a policy analyst in the Congressional Research Service's (CRS) Food and Agriculture Section. When Penny left CRS in 1987, she had risen to the Head of the Food and Agriculture Section.

Following her service in the federal government, Penny joined The Quaker Oats Company where she moved up from Manager of Government Affairs to Vice President of Public Affairs over her twelve and a half year career. After Quaker, Penny worked as Vice President of Public Affairs at Sears Roebuck and Co. from 2000 to 2002.

In 2003, Penny utilized her extensive experience in state and federal government affairs, community relations and communications to open her own firm, Penny Cate & Associates, LLC and has served as Principal of the Illinois Government Affairs Group.

During my time in the House of Representatives, it has been my pleasure to call Penny a friend. After decades of government service and work in government affairs, I wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, $17 trillion is our national debt. $800 billion is how much we spend more than we take in. We pay $280 billion a year just on interest payments on the money that we borrow. Those are the real numbers, and that is why House Republicans have spent much of these past 2 weeks talking about debt, deficits, and Federal spending.

House Republicans know what is driving America's debt. It is our reckless spending by legislators here in Washington. The American people know this, too. A recent Bloomberg poll found that 61 percent of Americans think it is right to include spending cuts with a debt limit increase.

This is not just a Republican problem. Vice President Joe Biden, while serving in the Senate, protested against adding to America's debt without ``taking positive steps to slow its growth.''

Mr. Speaker, that is what this debate has been about, and we will continue to work hard to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, a recent letter I received:

I am writing this letter in regards to the new

``affordable'' healthcare. My husband and I are small

business owners with two other employees. We purchase our

insurance as individual insurance, and we received a letter

this past week that our rates are changing. We currently have

a $5,000 deductible with a monthly premium of $415, and on

the new plan, if we stay with the current company, it is

going to be $4,000 with a monthly premium of $1,093.78. I

have tried to access the www.healthcare.gov Web site, and

have been able to register an account but have not been able

to get any type of pricing. I have contacted both of my

Illinois Senators and my House Representative and have been

told that they are not in favor of a government shutdown, but

I am here to say if a shutdown is what it takes to get people

to listen, then shut down. The reason I am contacting you is

because my Congressmen are not willing to stand up to the

President, and I just want to say good job for standing your

ground.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read a text I got from a friend and colleague from my State of Illinois:

John, I have firsthand experience that the premium for an

individual health policy is almost double the price now on

the exchanges in Illinois.

This person works for a health broker and her premium is

going from $600 to $1,100 per month with Blue Cross. This is

not good.

I pray that you all band together, John, and stay the

course, please. She is not the only one, John.

All my clients' new premiums are going higher, as well. If

they want it at the same price, they have to pick a much

larger deductible.

The President is not telling the truth. I am praying for

you, John, to hold the line.

Mr. Speaker, October 10th will mark the 102nd Anniversary of the Wuchang uprising, which led to the establishment of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on January 1, 1912. The people of Taiwan pay tribute to this anniversary, known as the National Day of the Republic of China, through celebrations, parades, and fireworks, befitting its importance as a national holiday. Due to our cooperative and warm relationship over these many decades, it is also a special occasion worthy of tribute by this Congress as well.

This important anniversary also provides an opportunity for Congress to contemplate the current state of our bilateral relationship with Taiwan and to take proactive steps to enhance it.

In this rapidly evolving global economy, and with Taiwan's economic importance only growing, I believe now is the time for our two nations to further enhance economic and trade relations, such as the US considering a Bilateral Investment Agreement with Taiwan. Taiwan is already the 10th largest trading partner with the US and I urge the Administration to conclude this bilateral agreement as soon as possible.

Concurrently, the US Trade Representative recently wrapped up the 19th round of negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I believe it's vitally important that this Agreement between the United States and Asian Pacific nations include Taiwan. My hope is for Taiwan to join the agreement expeditiously.

Finally, I look forward to continue to work toward a deepened relationship with Taiwan to achieve greater prosperity for both nations, and hope that such work can be undertaken through official diplomatic visits to the U.S. from Taiwan officials without obstruction.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for the recognition and for the opportunity to recognize Captain Howard V. Lee from Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Captain Lee was awarded the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy in Vietnam.

When Lee realized that the unit had suffered numerous casualties, depriving it of effective leadership, and being fully aware that the platoon was even then under more heavy attack by the enemy, Major Lee took seven men and proceeded by helicopter to reinforce the beleaguered platoon. Major Lee disembarked from the helicopter with two of his men, and braving withering enemy fire, led them into the perimeter, where he fearlessly moved from position to position, directing and encouraging the overtaxed troops. Although painfully wounded by fragments from an enemy grenade in several areas of his body, including his eye, Major Lee continued undauntedly throughout the night to direct the valiant defense, coordinate supporting fire and apprising higher headquarters of the plight of the platoon. The next morning, he collapsed from his wounds and was forced to relinquish command.

It is for his courage and unwavering devotion to duty that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Captain Howard V. Lee. Semper Fi.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember and recall the life of Carla Anderson. Carla passed away on July 23 after a month-long fight against an infection. She was 52, a loving mother, devoted wife, and the successful deputy executive director of the Next Generation 9-1-1 Institute. It was in this capacity that I had the real privilege to work with her.

The 9-1-1 Institute became the Next Generation 9-1-1 Institute as technology continued to move forward. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and I worked closely with the institute in our position as cochairs of the congressional E911 Caucus.

Carla's hard work played a vital role in the passage and enactment of significant legislation passed by Congress to advance 911 services. In so doing, many lives have been saved, as first responders throughout the country cannot only receive calls, but identify the location of the call. In the first responder community, time saves lives; and as technology improved, Carla ensured that the legislation and education of Members improved with it.

Carla was laid to rest in her beloved North Dakota. She will be missed by us and the first responder community throughout this country.