Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Trump administration proposed opening up all of the coast of the United States of America to offshore oil drilling. This is a very risky proposition for my home State of Florida. Our economy depends on tourism, clean water, a strong fishing economy, and we have a military mission line off of the West Coast of Florida that has to be protected from drilling.

We are not that far removed from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster that caused loss of life, billions of dollars in economic damage, and significant environmental damage as well. Why would we put our economy, our environment, our military missions at risk for such a risky proposition?

There may be appropriate places to drill for oil, but it is not off of the coast of the State of Florida.

My Republican colleague Francis Rooney and I have cosponsored a bipartisan bill, the Florida Coastal Protection Act, H.R. 2002. I urge the support of the Congress in turning back this very risky proposal for offshore oil drilling by the Trump administration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Here we are about 1 week before Christmas, and the GOP has proposed a tax bill that Ebenezer Scrooge would love. It is a big ``bah humbug'' for America and the families and communities we represent back home.

Their bill will raise taxes on millions of American middle class families while showering tax breaks and new loopholes on the superrich and big corporations. It is fundamentally unfair. It does this with a massive increase to our national debt of about $2.3 trillion, in essence, mortgaging the future for our kids and grandkids and squeezing out our ability to invest in medical research and modern infrastructure.

They admit they are going to look to cut and raise costs on families who depend on Medicaid and Medicare. It is not fair. In this bill, they even go so far as to rip health coverage away from 13 million Americans in another attack on the ACA. In Florida, 1.7 million of my neighbors rely on the healthcare.gov insurance pool for affordable coverage. They are, in essence, giving them a lump of coal for Christmas.

We have got to defeat this bill. Vote ``no'' on this Scrooge tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Courtney, for yielding the time and for his advocacy on behalf of America's families.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 3759, the RAISE Family Caregivers Act, and I want to thank my good friend and colleague Congressman Gregg Harper for being my partner in this endeavor to bring more attention to the struggle of so many families across the country for more balance, more support, when they must take care of a sick family member or a friend.

I would also like to thank Senator Susan Collins and Senator Tammy Baldwin, who have been tireless champions for caregivers and their families.

Family caregiving has become the new normal in healthcare here in America because it is oftentimes astronomically expensive to hire a caregiver or to get a little respite. Some do, but for many families, the better decision is a tough one, oftentimes, to make a very significant personal sacrifice: quit your job or go part-time while they devote themselves to their loved one.

All too often, caregivers are the only support system for their child with special needs or an aging family member, and they have little to no support for themselves.

Many of America's veterans stay integrated in communities because of the sacrifices of their family members to make sure that they get out and about and get to their appointments and get the care and interaction that they need.

Family caregivers help with many basic activities, like eating, dressing, transportation, bathing; and sometimes they are called upon to do things that are a little more complicated, such as even a little bit of medical care or nursing care.

Here are some of the shocking statistics: about 40 million family caregivers provide about $470 billion annually in unpaid care to their loved ones, and about 3.7 million family caregivers provide care to a child under the age of 18 due to a medical or behavioral condition or disability.

Because of the massive commitment of time, many caregivers leave the workforce. Caregivers age 50 and older, who leave the workforce to care for a parent, lose, on average, nearly $304,000 in wages and benefits over their lifetime. Women are most often the main caregivers and their average is even higher, about $324,000 in lost benefits and wages.

In my home State of Florida, there are almost 3 million caregivers at any given time and they provide over 2.6 billion hours of care.

A closer look at the work-related effects, as well as the personal, financial, and emotional hardships, demonstrates an increasing need to come together to better understand the unique needs of our caregivers and what we can do to support them.

That is why Congressman Harper and I introduced the bipartisanship Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage--RAISE--Family Caregivers Act. The RAISE Family Caregivers Act will create and maintain a common national family caregiver strategy led by the Secretary of Health and Human Services so that we can develop some additional support systems for the folks back home.

Our bill will bring together a diverse spectrum of stakeholders, experts, folks who are working every day to take care of their loved ones to be a part of the advisory council that will help develop some additional recommendations, hopefully for this Congress.

We must ensure that family caregivers have the resources and tools they need to face lost wages and the personal demands of taking care of their loved one while ensuring that their loved one does receive the best care.

I would like to thank the AARP, the Alzheimer's Association, the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, the Family Caregiver Alliance, and so many more that have encouraged us on this important piece of legislation.

As the complexity and intensity of family caregiving increases, I believe that this legislation will help boost families and allow us to be smart and efficient with our resources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this important bipartisanship bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and thank him for being a champion for working families across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the GOP tax bill because it is so fundamentally unfair. It is unfair that it raises taxes on tens of millions of middle class families while giving huge tax breaks to big corporations and the superrich. It does this, also, by adding over $1.5 trillion to the national debt.

The Center for a Responsible Federal Budget said this is a step backwards for fiscal responsibility, largely because it passes the tab on to our kids and our grandkids. They estimate that that will cost about $12,000 per household, just the debt portion of it--not even a mention.

Here is why middle class families get hurt:

Republicans eliminate the deduction for medical expenses. That is over 630,000 Floridians in my home State.

They eliminate the tax deduction that helps make college more affordable by being able to deduct the interest on your student loan.

They eliminate all these deductions for the middle class and give all the breaks to the superrich and big corporations. It is fundamentally unfair, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Jan Platt and to honor her legacy for the Tampa Bay community. She will always be remembered as an environmental pioneer, champion for ``ethics in government'' and inspiration for her selfless service.

Born in St. Petersburg, Jan lived in Tampa for most of her life and grew up with a love for Tampa Bay and its natural environment. She graduated from Hillsborough High School in 1954 and earned a degree in political science from Florida State University, where she graduated Phi Beta Kappa, in 1958. During college, she was President of the Student Senate, Student Body Vice President, and even recognized amongst her peers as the ``Most Outstanding Senior Woman'' in her graduating class. After graduating she began her career as a schoolteacher and taught at both Hillsborough and Plant High Schools before finally being elected to serve on the City of Tampa's City Council in 1974. Four years later, she was elected to Hillsborough County's Board of County Commission, where she proudly served for 24 years.

Jan served her community in countless ways. She established the Agency on Bay Management, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection Program. She led as the President of the Suncoast Girl Scout Council and the Hillsborough County Head Start Community Foundation INC. Jan endowed a scholarship in honor of her sister, Bobbie Lou, at the

Florida State University College of Music. She was also an active member of the Friends of the Library. Because of her support for libraries, in her honor, the Tampa-Hillsborough County Public Library named one of their branches, the ``Jan Kaminis Platt Regional Library''.

Additionally, Jan was the recipient of the University of South Florida's Women in Leadership and Philanthropy Lifetime Achievement Award, recipient of the Hillsborough County Bar Association's Liberty Bell Award, and she was inducted into the Hillsborough County's Women's Hall of Fame in 2012.

I was honored to serve alongside Jan during my time on Hillsborough County's Board of County Commission. She was an inspiration to me and many others throughout her career in elected office. A passionate leader, Jan's love of the environment led her to devote herself to protect and preserve our community's natural resources.

Jan Platt inspired me to be a better public servant. She was honest, ethical and loved our Tampa community--from the waters of Tampa Bay to the pristine, wooded areas she worked to protect. Throughout her career serving our community, even in times of great change in local governing bodies, Jan was steadfast in her leadership and it was a great honor to learn from her and know her. I hope her commitment to ethics in government will inspire another generation of passionate leaders to serve.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of our Tampa Bay community, I am proud to honor the life of Jan Platt and pay tribute to her outstanding contributions to the Tampa community. Jan is survived by her husband Bill, son Kevin, his wife Michele and granddaughter Emma. She leaves an indelible legacy for future generations to enjoy our bay and its waters the same way she did.

Mr. Speaker, for decades now in America we have worked together to make sure that kids can see a doctor and get the care that they need. Working with pediatricians, families, and advocates back home, we have reached a historic point where almost all kids across the country have health insurance coverage.

The Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, or known in Florida as Florida KidCare, or Healthy Kids, has been an important piece of this historic coverage level. CHIP simply is vital for families, millions of hardworking families, so that their kids can get the checkups, the immunizations, sometimes the critical care that they need so they can be healthy and well.

Now, I chair the bipartisan Children's Healthcare Caucus. We educate and advocate so that kids across America are healthy and well. So it is especially disappointing this year that my Republican colleagues failed to act before CHIP expired.

See, they were consumed all year long with ripping health coverage away, decimating the Affordable Care Act, and radically changing health services provided under Medicaid. In doing so, they let our kids down; they let our families down. And then, at the 11th hour, after the program expired, they come up with a very partisan bill rather than the bipartisan bill that has been the historic backbone of Children's Health Insurance.

Don't take it from me. A lot of the advocates across the country, like pediatricians, obstetricians, gynecologists, March of Dimes, say: Please don't fund CHIP based upon harmful cuts; don't have cuts negatively impact the health of women, children, and families. Pediatricians say: Don't jeopardize other important child health policies in the process.

Let's go back to the drawing board as soon as possible, over the weekend, next week; bring it back to the floor next week, so that families and kids get the care that they need.

This bill today, unfortunately, is simply a delay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the distinguished career and leadership of ``one of country's most influential advocates for women's rights,'' Barbara A. Zdravecky. She is retiring after serving 24 years as the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida. I am honored to recognize her selfless service and valuable contributions during these challenging times for the health rights of women.

A Pennsylvania native, Barbara graduated from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania and earned her nursing degree from Manatee County's State College of Florida. Barbara served as head nurse of Manatee Memorial Hospital's Psychiatric Program and later served as the Patient Care Coordinator of the First Hospice Program in Key West, primarily caring for HIV/AIDS patients. In 1993, Barbara accepted the offer to lead Planned Parenthood of Southwest Florida as its Chief Executive Officer where she continues to serve and live by their mission to provide comprehensive health care, education, and advocacy for women of all walks of life.

Throughout her career, Barbara advocated to ensure that women have the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives and fulfill their dreams--no ceilings, no limits. She successfully fought countless legislative battles and then brought legal challenges when the legislative body overreached, such as Florida's House Bill 1411, the Termination of Pregnancies and Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. Celeste Philip, that would have blocked access to health care for women and their families. She kept up the good fight on all attempts to protect against attempts to cut funding for or defund Planned Parenthood altogether.

Under Barbara's leadership, Planned Parenthood grew in stature into the Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida in 2015. Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida now covers 22 counties with 11 health centers serving over 45,000 patients in Florida.

Barbara was also instrumental in engineering regional headquarters in Sarasota and constructing the new building at 736 Central Avenue where the health care provider has expanded its services. In September, it became the first in Florida to offer hormone therapy for transgender patients.

Barbara has received numerous awards and accolades for her dedicated service. In 2006, Barbara was honored with the Ruth Green Award as the top Planned Parenthood CEO in the country by Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Equality Florida presented her with the ``2014 Voice for Equality Award'' and in 2015, she was named ``Wonder Woman'' by the Women's Resource Center of Manatee County.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Florida, my neighbors in the Tampa Bay community and women everywhere, I would like to take this opportunity to thank one of the great champions of women's health and equal rights, Barbara A. Zdravecky, for her many years of service and contributions fighting for the rights of women and their families. It is with great honor and joy to congratulate Barbara on her new endeavor as well as the many accomplishments she has had throughout her career, and I know together we will keep up the good fight.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act authored by two of my Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues, Mr. Brett Guthrie from Kentucky and Ms. Doris Matsui from California. I thank Chairman Walden and Chairman Burgess for their help. I also thank Senators Portman and Kaine from the Senate.

It is vital that the House reauthorize the early hearing detection and intervention initiative for an additional 5 years because it provides the all-important newborn and infant hearing screening, evaluation, and intervention.

The bill will provide vital resources to the Health Resources and Services Administration to run a grant initiative and allow the Centers for Disease Control to conduct hearing loss research.

According to data from the CDC, 1.4 babies out of every--I don't know how you get 1.4--but 1.4 babies out of 1,000 that were screened were found to have a prevalence of hearing loss. And as a mother, I know how important it is to determine if your child has any level of hearing loss as early as possible so that a parent can determine the best treatment to allow their child to live a full and happy life.

My home State of Florida has required newborn screening since October 1, 2000. We need to keep this going. According to the most recent State data in Florida, 98 percent of all newborns in Florida will be screened within the first month. That is absolutely vital to detect any problem early in their lives.

So let's work together. Extending this newborn screening initiative for another 5 years ensures that babies will continue to have access to this vital hearing screening, and we can make sure that kids across America get the healthcare that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank my colleagues, Representatives Guthrie and Matsui and Senators Portman and Kaine, for leading the charge on this important effort. I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan S. 652.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the primary cosponsor of the bill. And I thank her for championing the healthcare of children across America.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to thank my Energy and Commerce colleagues, especially Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Matsui. I urge approval of this bipartisan bill.

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

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Davis for his outstanding advocacy on behalf of families all across America.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2824 because this Republican bill throws up unnecessary bureaucratic hoops and roadblocks to the progress we have made under the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting initiative.

It is smart policy to target resources and community experts to families who are most at risk back home. I have seen it in action back home in Tampa, Florida, where experts simply go to the home and explain to parents the importance of reading to your young child to get them ready for school, the importance of sleep, healthy habits, turning off the TV, and focusing on being a family unit. That is why it is so unfortunate that the Republicans are targeting the progress we have made.

We are smarter now. We understand what is successful, and, unfortunately, H.R. 2824 would undermine successful home visiting initiatives by making policy changes that no expert has

asked for. Indeed, I checked with my folks back home at the University of South Florida and on the ground there across the Tampa Bay area, and they say that, no, this bill will jeopardize the progress that we are making right now. In fact, they think that the match requirement will bring to an end the progress that we have been able to make because of the pressure on our State budget.

The way forward is through the bill that my colleagues--Mr. Davis, Mr. Doggett, Ms. DeGette--and I have charted under H.R. 3525, which is a fairly clean reauthorization that doubles down on what works and doesn't invest in the bureaucratic red tape that simply is not going to help a family succeed.

So, Madam Chair, I urge the House to defeat this bill and, instead, to work in a bipartisan fashion.

Madam Chair, instead, I urge the House to defeat this bill that is not recommended by anyone in the field. Instead, let's work in a bipartisan way on what works, what saves taxpayers' money in the long run, and, most importantly, what truly boosts families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work of a visionary and a dedicated leader of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Dr. Paulette C. Walker. Dr. Walker has dedicated her life to improving the lives of others through education and public service. Today, I am grateful to recognize her selfless dedication and honor her valuable contributions to our community.

Dr. Walker served as the 25th National President of the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. A Detroit native she is now a proud Floridian calling the Tampa Bay area home since February 1990. Dr. Walker has served Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. on the local, regional and national levels for more than 45 years.

Dr. Walker was initiated into Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. through the Epsilon Epsilon Chapter in 1966 and earned her bachelor's degree in mathematics education from Michigan State University, master's degree in guidance and counseling from the University of Michigan, and her doctorate of education in administration and supervision also from UM.

Dr. Walker's research was on curriculum and instruction as well as administration and supervision with a focus on urban schools. She has also served as a classroom teacher, middle school and high school counselor, director of counseling, assistant principal and district- wide supervisor of state and federal projects. Her education, experience and expertise even combined to help her co-author a book, ``We Can Have Better Urban Schools.''

In July 2011, she retired as the Director of Undergraduate Programs and Internship in the College of Education at the University of South Florida.

Throughout her career, Dr. Walker received numerous awards from several professional, civic and religious organizations. These flowed from her hard work and belief that every person has a special gift that should be shared with the world. She is the recipient of the Hank Nuwer Anti-Hazing Hero Award; Ronald McNair Scholars Research Mentor Award; Ronald McNair Scholars Role Model Mentor Award; Outstanding Undergraduate Advisor Award from the University of South Florida; Certificate of Merit, Institutional Award, American College Testing Program and National Academic Advising Association; and the President's Affirmative Act Award, University of South Florida.

Dr. Walker is an active member of Mt. Olive AME Church in Tampa, Florida where she serves on the Trustee Board. Her other professional and community affiliations include: Board of Supervisors for Coahoma County; Member of the Council of Presidents--The National Pan-Hellenic Council; PACE Center for Girls Advisory Board; Moffitt Cancer Center African American Advisory Board; Mt. Olive Tampa Community Development Center, Mt. Pleasant Charter School Advisory Board. The State of Florida has recognized how valuable her counsel can be and appointed her to the Governor's Commission on African American Affairs. Also, at the state level she serves on the American Cancer Society's Hank Warren Advisory Board. Our neighbors also don't lack for her service and vision as she serves in Hillsborough County on the Literacy Volunteers of America Board of Directors, American Diabetes Association Board of Directors, Bible-Based Christian Fellowship Academy Board of Directors and Moffitt Cancer Center Community Council Research Board.

Mr. Speaker, on the behalf of my neighbors in my hometown and indeed the entire Tampa Bay community where she has touched so many lives, we thank Dr. Paulette C. Walker for inspiring everyone to find their special gift and serve the world. I am proud to honor the ``Devastating Diva of Delta Sigma Theta, Sorority, Inc.'', Dr. Paulette C. Walker for her uncompromising commitment to her country, state and community for more than 50 years.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this Republican bill weakens America's commitment to clean energy. It harms the huge number of jobs that are being created in the renewable energy sector. And it stalls consumer cost savings tied to energy efficiency.

Democrats have a different vision. It is one that lowers costs on our neighbors back home, and helps create the higher paying jobs of the future.

My amendment increases funding for the Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy account by about $177 million, and it reduces funding for the fossil Energy Research and Development account by about $355 million.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives across America have a proven return on investment for taxpayers. This amendment is paid for by reducing, but not eliminating, accounts that do not have the same return on investment for taxpayers.

Investments in energy efficiency and renewables create jobs and help make our businesses more competitive. Energy efficiency reduces costs for consumers. And wouldn't that be a positive development for taxpayers back home, that the Congress is asking to put more money back into their pockets?

The amount proposed for energy efficiency and renewable energy in the Republican bill is so low that America will have to reduce the number of research, development, and demonstration projects that are often supported with industry, at our great national laboratories, and at our fantastic universities.

Mr. Chairman, America should be a leader in innovation and technological advancement. But, instead, the Republican bill says America should take a back seat. Well, America should not take a back seat to anyone. We are in the midst of a technological revolution when it comes to energy and energy efficiency.

Look what is happening all across America. We have a very diverse energy portfolio and a growing clean energy and efficiency sector. This is especially important as we tackle the costs and challenges of the changing climate.

Look at what we are today because of robust investments of the past decade. The solar industry is creating jobs 12 times faster than the overall U.S. workforce. In 2016, 1 out of every 50 new jobs was in solar energy.

Republicans used to say they were for all-of-the-above sources of energy. Well, you can't say that anymore.

The Trump administration and House Republicans are ceding America's leadership role in the world by failing to invest in technologies that will save families and businesses money.

Instead, we should work together and face the challenges of the changing climate head-on and not bury our heads in the sand. Sixteen of the 17 hottest years on record have occurred since 2001; including 2016, which was the third consecutive record-breaking year.

The rising costs of the changing climate are a real threat to everyone, especially to the families I represent back home in Florida, which is why I filed another amendment that was not ruled in order, an amendment that would limit the Department of Energy from removing the term ``climate change'' from their publications.

That is right, the Trump administration has already removed mention of climate change from government websites, and has deleted a sentence linking climate change to sea level rise in a press release. Ignoring or trying to hide the cost of the changing climate will simply cost us more in the long run.

We should be working together on investing in a clean energy future, but that, unfortunately, seems farther away today, unless we adopt an amendment like mine and begin to understand the realities that we are facing.

If we don't unleash American ingenuity now, our neighbors back home will face higher AC bills, property insurance bills, flood insurance bills, and have to put more property taxes into replacing water and wastewater infrastructure.

I appreciate Ranking Member Kaptur's vision. A little while ago, she was talking about our national labs--the fact that we have the best scientists in the world. Don't hamstring them by cutting back on our investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. She understands that this is our future that we are talking about. I appreciate her work. I appreciate the work of Chairman Simpson. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the Castor amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from West Virginia. He is a well-spoken advocate for his State.

I am not zeroing out the fossil fuel research for R&D, but, instead, we have got to look towards the future.

Where are the jobs being created now?

It is in renewable energy and energy efficiency, things that are going to put money back into the pockets of consumers and unleash this technological revolution so America can stay the leader in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Castor amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910. The bill shortcuts the important review process for interstate natural gas pipeline projects, a process which already boasts one of the quickest review periods for any type of major energy project. The bill is unnecessary.

To my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee's point when he says that too many of these projects are being delayed: to the contrary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission testified in front of our committee

that almost 90 percent of interstate natural gas pipeline projects are approved within 1 year. This is a dangerous bill because of what it does to short-circuit safety and environmental review processes.

Now, I want to say, at the outset, pipelines can be a safe and practical way to transport natural gas. Natural gas pipelines are part of a modern energy infrastructure system--I would say that almost all Democrats agree with that--but what this bill does is it shortcuts, it overrides safety, private property rights, environmental concerns.

This is a problem, because when you look at the long list of serious accidents involving natural gas pipelines, the fatalities, the accidents, the injuries, it is just inappropriate and very poor public policy to give those natural gas pipelines a pass.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy.

Mr. Chair, I think the point on eminent domain is the fact that this bill will trample on the rights of landowners, because my colleague is correct, current law gives natural gas pipeline companies access to Federal eminent domain authority, allowing these corporations to take private property to build their pipelines. But what the bill does, it would further narrow the already few opportunities that landowners and stakeholders have for review of safety and important environmental protections.

It also would allow surveying while circumventing local permitting and without property owner consent, and that is a very significant change, because it would allow Federal and State agencies to accept aerial survey data and provides that the agencies may grant conditional approvals based on that data, and that can be unwise and unsafe. So we wanted to highlight that as a very significant concern for those Members who are concerned about eminent domain and private property rights.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman).

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear: I heard the comments of my colleague from Tennessee, and the Democrats do support natural gas pipelines, a very important part of our energy infrastructure.

And, as a reminder, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves

almost 90 percent of all pipeline applications within 1 year. And if there is any holdup recently, it is because the Republican-led Senate has not confirmed an additional FERC appointee. That is holding up the process of approving more natural gas pipelines.

What we don't approve of, however, is a spill that attempts to short- circuit very important safety and environmental review processes and take private property rights away from landowners.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

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

Mr. Chairman, when we had a hearing earlier in the year in the Energy and Commerce Committee, I assumed there was a major backlog of unreviewed applications that spurred my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to draft this bill. But then we heard from experts from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about this, and they testified that nearly 90 percent of these major infrastructure projects are approved in less than a year.

Many companies working to have other interstate energy projects approved can only dream of a Federal review occurring in less than a year. So this is already a very efficient process.

I would say this bill is unnecessary, it is duplicative, and it is wasteful. And I know many in the Congress here are looking for ways to eliminate government waste and duplication.

The Congress has already taken action to streamline the Federal environmental permitting review process for major infrastructure projects. Sometimes our memories are short, but it was just last Congress where Congress adopted the major Transportation and Infrastructure bill, the FAST Act. It passed in a bipartisan manner and was signed into law.

The FAST Act authorized the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, or FPISC, to improve the timeliness, predictability, and transparency of Federal environmental review processes for these major infrastructure projects.

Now, FPISC is already getting underway. It has set up this enhanced coordination and transparency by establishing a lead agency for the project, recommends performance schedules, and public project timetables. Many of the provisions in this bill, however, seem to be largely duplicative of the activities of FPISC and what they are already doing.

FPISC is already overseeing and coordinating permitting processes for 32 major infrastructure projects, including seven interstate natural gas pipelines--just to highlight that this is an unnecessary power grab that really is short-circuiting very important safety and environmental review processes.

There is no problem across this country right now with getting your natural gas pipeline approved unless there is a real problem in the details of the application.

Now, I used to practice environmental law in a previous lifetime, and what I learned is, when you provide for these short-circuited processes that keep the public out, that keep other stakeholders out, what you are going to do on the back end, you are going to cause more lawsuits, more delays, rather than just adhering to the proper process, answering questions as you go along, pressing ahead, altering the route when it needs to be rerouted.

So this is a very important issue. The details really matter here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker and some submissions for the Record.

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

I include in the Record some information on pipeline incidents from the U.S. Government, just to highlight the fact that it is vitally important that these pipelines undergo safety and environmental reviews. These are the pipeline incident reports from 1997-2016 for all States. I will just read a few of these statistics here.

In 2016, you had 16 fatalities from natural gas pipeline incidents, 83 injuries, total cost of property damage, over $300 million. In 2015, 10 fatalities, 49 injuries, over 328 incidents. There is a 3-year average from 2014-2016 of 312 incidents. The 5-year average across the country is 299 incidents; 10-year average, 286 incidents.

For fatalities, the 3-year average, 15 fatalities; the 5-year average, 13; the 10-year average, 13; the 20-year average, 16.

And for injuries, the 3-year average, 75 injuries; the 5-year average, 64 injuries; the 10-year average, 64 injuries; the 20-year average, 65 injuries. And the property damage report, just the 3-year average is about $315 million.

PHMSA Pipeline Incidents: Multi-Year Averages (19974-2016)

Incident Type: Significant, System Type: All, State: All.

Incident count:

3 Year Average, (2014-2016), 312; 5 Year Average, (2012-

2016), 299; 10 Year Average, (2007-2016), 286; 20 Year

Average, (1997-2016), 284.

Fatalities:

3 Year Average, 15; 5 Year Average, 13; 10 Year Average,

13; 20 Year Average, 16.

Injuries:

3 Year Average, 75; 5 Year Average, 64; 10 Year Average,

64; 20 Year Average, 65.

Total cost:

3 Year Average, $315,138,727; 5 Year Average, $306,888,604;

10 Year Average, $475,607,772; 20 Year Average, $389,601,666.

2017 Year-to-date:

Incidents, 118; Fatalities, 1; Injuries, 16; Total Cost,

$49,385,394.

Calendar year, Number, Fatalities, Injuries, Total cost

current year dollars:

1997, 267, 10, 77, $110,377,793; 1998, 295, 21, 81,

$174,516,797; 1999, 275, 22, 108, $178,313,209; 2000, 290,

38, 81, $257,659,464; 2001, 233, 7, 61, $79,086,596; 2002,

258, 12, 49, $124,067,949; 2003, 297, 12, 71, $163,459,897;

2004, 309, 23, 56, $314,362,210; 2005, 336, 16, 46,

$1,476,994,582; 2006, 257, 19, 34, $157,117,098; 2007, 265,

15, 46, $147,800,810; 2008, 278, 8, 54, $592,290,867; 2009,

275, 13, 62, $180,360,208; 2010, 264, 19, 103,

$1,854,123,037; 2011, 287, 12, 51, $447,059,777; 2012, 254,

10, 54, $233,813,285; 2013, 304, 8, 42, $355,213,552; 2014,

301, 19, 94, $305,253,746; 2015, 328, 10, 49, $338,297,940;

2016, 308, 16, 83, $301,864,494; Grand Total, 5,681, 310,

1,302, $7,792,033,312.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say that it is inappropriate to short-circuit the very important safety and environmental review processes for our interstate natural gas pipelines. This is a solution in search of a problem.

We know that FERC approves these gas pipeline applications at about 90 percent. The only reason a little delay has fallen off recently is because the Senate has not approved the new FERC appointee over a matter of 5 months. If they would do that, I think they could get back on track as well.

The ones that are not approved are undergoing very significant review. Even in the case for the major projects now, we have a new system, a coordinated effort through the FPISC, the new council that is overseeing interstate natural gas pipeline, so it is duplicative as well.

It is inappropriate for a process that already grants eminent domain rights through pipeline companies to go through private property now to short-circuit the environmental and safety reviews. That is just really going too far for corporations and their profits, where landowners and other stakeholders have to have the ability to weigh in. Otherwise, you are going to cause more lawsuits and more delays at the very end of the process and, I think, do exactly the opposite of what the author of the legislation intends to do.

So at this point, based upon all of the evidence that has been presented, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. Don't elevate corporate profits over the interests of the public.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2883, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act. My Republican colleagues argue that we need more bills like H.R. 2883 to extract and transport more oil and gas as quickly as possible. But building a modern energy infrastructure for the 21st century requires a lot more than drilling wells, laying more pipelines, filling more railcars with crude oil, and putting more tanker trucks on our highways.

A modern, American, 21st century energy infrastructure plan must address the threat of climate change. This is the biggest energy challenge that we face as a country. We cannot have a meaningful conversation about America's energy infrastructure without also having a conversation about the changing climate and the huge costs heaped on hardworking American families and businesses because of the change in climate.

I am proud to represent the State of Florida, but here is what my neighbors are experiencing now: higher AC bills, more extreme weather events, heat waves, higher cost for flood insurance and property insurance, and property taxes that are having to go now to repair our water and wastewater infrastructure on the coast.

We have a rapidly diminishing window to act to reduce our carbon pollution before the catastrophic impacts of climate change are irreversible. The energy infrastructure decisions that we make today will have a real impact on whether we can mitigate climate change in the future. We need to understand this risk before we lock in infrastructure that will produce carbon pollution for decades to come.

This bill's supporters don't like to be reminded of the daunting challenges of the changing climate. That is reflected in our discussion today, and, frankly, it is reflected in the glaring inaction of this Republican Congress to address climate change.

If enacted into law, H.R. 2883 would move us backwards in our fight for the clean energy economy and the jobs of the future. H.R. 2883 would rubber-stamp permits for pipelines to carry oil, natural gas, even tar sands crude into the United States.

Tar sands crude is the dirtiest fuel on the planet from a climate perspective, and this bill creates a permitting process for cross- border pipelines that make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Federal Government to say no to any of these projects.

This bill asserts that every cross-border energy project is always in the public interest. It is up to a project's opponent to try to prove otherwise. The bill even allows the oil industry to make major modifications to its pipelines without getting any approval at all. That means, if a company wants to increase its pipeline capacity or reverse an existing pipeline to carry more oil, natural gas, or tar sands crude into the United States, the company can do just that, no questions asked.

Building new pipelines or expanding existing ones could have a profound environmental impact, but the bill allows for no meaningful environmental review for a cross-border pipeline. The bill says the Federal Government can only examine the cross-border segment of the project.

Who thought that up? That is very creative.

It is almost hard to believe that this is what the bill does, but it is true. For a pipeline spanning hundreds of miles, the environmental review will focus on only that tiny part that crosses the U.S. border. That is irresponsible. That would eliminate the possibility of any meaningful examination of the carbon pollution impacts of these pipelines.

We should be examining the carbon impact of every pipeline before we approve it. Many are very important. But to do so without important environmental reviews in this day and age is frightening.

The future will belong to the country that builds an energy infrastructure to support a cleaner, lower carbon economy, and it is our responsibility to lead the country in the clean energy future with all of the jobs, consumer savings, and economic growth that would be provided.

This bill also provides more proof of what is plain: In this Republican-led Congress, it is, unfortunately, likely to go down in history as having failed to meet one of its greatest responsibilities of this time--the challenge of the changing climate. Our children and grandchildren will be poorer for it, and they will ask us, and especially my Republican colleagues: Why didn't you act when you had the chance?

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, lest anyone be left with the impression that there is a problem with cross-border pipeline approvals, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, from a December 2016 report, says that over the last 5 years, natural gas pipeline capacity between the U.S. and Mexico has grown substantially and is projected to double through 2018.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez).

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

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from a number of environmental and other organizations in opposition to the bill.

They write, in part: ``On behalf of the undersigned organizations and our millions of members and supporters across the country, we write today to express our strong opposition to H.R. 2883, the `Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act.' This bill represents a fourth irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled `North American Energy Infrastructure Act' in as many years. For the reasons below, we are opposed to the passage of this legislation and its attempt to ram through permits for new cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission lines without meaningful environmental review or public participation.''

June 26, 2017.

Re Please Oppose H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border

Energy Infrastructure Act''.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned

organizations and our millions of members and supporters

across the country, we write today to express our strong

opposition to H.R. 2883, the ``Promoting Cross-Border Energy

Infrastructure Act.'' This bill represents a fourth

irresponsible attempt to pass the previously titled ``North

American Energy Infrastructure Act'' in as many years. For

the reasons below, we are opposed to the passage of this

legislation and its attempt to ram through permits for new

cross-border oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission

lines without meaningful environmental review or public

participation.

Our reasons for opposing H.R. 2883 are as follows:

It is unnecessary and eliminates longstanding procedure.

Executive Order 13337 established a longstanding process that

has been used by both Republican and Democratic

administrations for decades to ensure that energy

transmission projects crossing our international borders from

Canada and Mexico are in the national interest.

It eliminates critical environmental and economic analysis.

H.R. 2883 eliminates the current requirement that proposed

oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines

that cross the U.S. border with Mexico or Canada obtain a

presidential permit, after an environmental review and

determination that the project is in the national interest.

It irresponsibly narrows the scope of environmental review.

HR 2883 replaces existing processes with one that limits

environmental review to a narrow portion of the project,

exempts certain types of projects from any permit

requirement, and shifts the burden of proof to make it

difficult to not approve a project.

It undermines the National Environmental Policy Act. The

bill effectively exempts cross-border projects from

meaningful environmental review under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by dramatically narrowing the

focus of that review. Under the bill, the permit requirement

and NEPA review apply only to the cross-border segment of the

project. Trans-boundary pipelines and transmission lines are

multi-billion dollar infrastructure investments that stretch

hundreds of miles, last for decades, and pose environmental

risks well beyond their border crossings. However, contrary

to NEPA, the bill precludes review of the project's full

impacts, such as oil spills and the consequences for

landowners, public safety, drinking water, climate change,

and wildlife.

It eliminates the need to justify projects as in the

national interest. The bill eliminates the requirement that

to issue a permit, the federal permitting agency must find

the project to be in the national interest. Instead, the bill

requires an agency to approve the project, unless it finds

that the narrow segment that crosses the border ``is not in

the public interest of the United States.'' By shifting the

burden of proof to require a showing that the project is

contrary to the public interest and sharply narrowing the

focus of that inquiry, this provision makes it extremely

difficult for an agency to ever deny a permit, and it largely

eliminates the ability to approve a permit subject to

protective conditions.

Large, complicated, risky projects like oil and gas

pipelines and electric transmission facilities are precisely

the types of activities that ought to be well-planned and

reviewed before they are built. Failure to do so not only

results in threats to public safety, but can also harm our

economy and environment.

Instead of improving responsible siting, construction, and

operation of oil and gas pipelines and electric transmission

facilities, this bill goes in the opposite direction by

forcing these projects through no matter what the costs may

be. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose this bill.

Sincerely,

350.org; Bold Alliance; Clean Water Action; Defenders of

Wildlife; Greenpeace USA; Indigenous Environmental

Network; League of Conservation Voters; Natural

Resources Defense Council; Oil Change International;

Power Shift Network; Seeding Sovereignty; Sierra Club.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2883 eliminates the current requirement that proposed oil and natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines that cross the U.S. border obtain a Presidential permit. That only happens after an environmental review and a determination that the project is in the national interest. I know this might be tempting to some of my colleagues, but I encourage you to have a closer look at what this bill really does.

The bill replaces this process with a new process that limits environmental review to a narrow portion of the project, just the portion that crosses the border. It exempts certain types of projects from any permit requirement and shifts the burden of proof to make it difficult to disapprove a project.

The bill also allows a project that is rejected under current law to reapply under the new, weaker process and exempts all modifications to existing cross-border projects from any requirement for Federal review or approval.

In essence, it grants a get-out-of-jail-free card, or, actually, I guess it is more akin to whatever you roll, you get to pass go, and you get to collect your $200. That is not okay for some international oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and electric transmission lines. These are major infrastructure projects, and we have got to maintain the ability to have a meaningful review; otherwise, we are going to suffer significant incidents, accidents, fatalities, and more.

So let me close my remarks and my portion of the debate here today. I have enjoyed this debate, but I want to highlight again that the Congress is really missing an opportunity to address one of the most significant challenges that we face, and that is the challenge of climate change.

What is particularly troubling about this bill, as well, is it keeps the public in the dark. Think about it. If you live near a major international pipeline project, shouldn't you have the right to participate and understand what such project will allow in your backyard?

The bill would allow large and long-lived cross-border energy projects to be approved with no understanding or consideration of their environmental impact or to be exempted from any permitting requirement at all. The bill assumes that these projects are always in the public interest regardless of the merits. It is an unjustifiable giveaway. It elevates corporate profits over the public interest, and it is wrong.

The public, including communities and landowners directly affected by the projects, would have little or no information and no opportunity to object or request mitigating action except to the extent provided under limited State laws.

For all of these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge the Members of this body to oppose this misguided bill so that the Congress can turn its attention to the most daunting challenge of our time: climate change, our clean energy future, and the clean energy economy and all of the jobs it entails.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican's ``Smoggy Skies Act'' that will gut America's landmark Clean Air Act.

Since Congress passed the Clean Air Act almost 50 years ago, American progress on clean air has gone hand in hand with growth in jobs and businesses. But that is at risk under this bill today because polluters want to take shortcuts and shift the costs to hardworking American families and other businesses. Republicans are helping them get this done through this ``Smoggy Skies Act.''

Coming from the State of Florida, I understand very well how air pollution hurts jobs and economic growth. Americans everywhere, regardless of their ZIP Code, deserve an EPA and a Congress working to clean up air pollution, not boost polluter profits at our expense. In Florida, we probably would not be the tourist mecca that we are without the Clean Air Act.

When you look across the globe at other countries and people are deciding, ``Where am I going to take my vacation? Where am I going to take my trip?'' they are very discerning about countries that do not have the same kind of consumer protections.

I have seen, since the time I was a little girl, vast improvement in air quality back home in the Tampa Bay area, to the point of it used to be, in the early morning, you would walk outside and you could smell and taste it. Now we have very few days of smog and pollution.

But still, Congress should protect the pocketbooks of American citizens, not the profits of polluters because we have pockets of real pollution problems all across America. Approximately 125 million Americans still live in areas with dangerous levels of air pollution.

Air pollution costs our families money as smoggy skies aggravate asthma, COPD, bronchitis, lung disease, and the ability to work outside. Improving ozone standards can help avoid premature deaths, childhood asthma attacks, and missed school days.

I encourage you all to google the New England Journal of Medicine study that came out at the end of last month that said dirty air is very costly and has a deadly impact on many Americans still, especially our older neighbors and younger people with asthma and other respiratory illnesses. It said air pollution hastens death in America.

Harvard researchers determined that, after reviewing years of health records of more than 60 million Medicare beneficiaries in specific air quality levels, we are still in trouble. I took that as a direct warning to this Congress not to roll back the Clean Air Act and air pollution protections.

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to take a look at air quality every 5 years, but under this bill, nope, it will be every 10 years. So polluters win and citizens pay more.

The Clean Air Act codifies a citizen's right to know when they are breathing dirty air, but under this bill, nope, citizens will not have a right to know. Again, the polluters win and citizens pay more.

Just like Mr. Tonko said, America is the world leader in ingenuity, technology, and science, but not under this GOP bill. Polluters will win, science will lose, and citizens will pay more.

This is a costly shame, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my amendment seeks to ensure that American families aren't forced to pick up the costs of air pollution that should be rightfully borne by polluters. My amendment seeks to protect kids across America, our older neighbors, and the most vulnerable to smog and dirty air.

My amendment says that the Republicans' ``Smoggy Skies Act'' will not take effect if the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee finds negative impacts on individuals with asthma, bronchitis, COPD, and other health conditions, particularly in children and our older neighbors, pregnant women, folks who work outdoors, and those in working-class communities.

Mr. Chairman, Americans value their health and they value America's landmark Clean Air Act. Earlier this year, the American Lung Association released a new poll showing that 61 percent of all Americans support stronger smog standards and clearly oppose this dirty-air policy.

Harold P. Wimmer, national president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said: ``More than half of all Americans breathe polluted air, putting them at risk of asthma attacks, respiratory infections, and premature death.''

The public wants clean, healthy air. It is no surprise that American voters strongly support maintaining safeguards to protect their health from the dangers of ozone pollution.

I have seen great improvement in the air quality over my lifetime back home in Tampa, Florida. We have heard in front of our committee and heard from folks through social media, from Democrats and Republicans here today, how much they value clean air and how much progress we have seen. Yet, according to the Florida KIDS COUNT Data book, in 2016, asthma emergency department visits reached over 48,000 in my State, and hospitalizations are in the thousands and thousands. That takes a toll, and it is very costly. Florida is not alone. This affects all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, you might have heard during general debate that I referenced a new, very important study that came out at in the month of June in the New England Journal of Medicine. Here is a press report that summarizes the study.

The title of the story is: ``U.S. Air Pollution Still Kills Thousands Every Year, Study Concludes.

``The air Americans breathe has been getting cleaner for decades.

``But air pollution is still killing thousands in the U.S. every year. . . .

`` `We are now providing bullet-proof evidence that we are breathing harmful air,' says Francesca Dominici, a professor of biostatistics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who led the study. `Our air is contaminated.'

``Dominici and her colleagues set out to do the most comprehensive study to date assessing the toll that air pollution takes on American lives.

``The researchers used data from Federal air monitoring stations as well as satellites to compile a detailed picture of air pollution down to individual ZIP Codes. They then analyzed the impact of very low levels of air pollution on mortality, using data from 60 million Medicare patients from 2000 to 2012.''

They said: ``About 12,000 lives could be saved each year . . . by cutting the level of fine particulate matter nationwide by just 1 microgram per cubic meter of air below current standards.

Dominici said: `` `It's very strong, compelling evidence that, currently, the safety standards are not safe enough.' ''

And yet, Republicans want to take us backwards. They are going to side with polluters over the health of American families, and I think that is wrong.

The proposed rollbacks by the Trump administration and this Republican Congress are simply a costly, dirty air policy. Repealing clean air rules will bring about disastrous health and economic damage to not only the folks I represent back home in Florida, but all across the country.

So let's be clear. Ozone, or smog, is a corrosive gas that forms when emissions from smokestacks and tailpipes cook in the heat and sunlight. It triggers asthma and other respiratory illnesses. It is very expensive. It is not fair for Republicans to let polluters off the hook and shift costs to hardworking American families.

So if you believe in clean air in our great country, support my amendment. If you believe environmental protection based on science, support my amendment. If you want to stand with American families over polluters who seek shortcuts, support the Castor amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.