Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Pallone for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the TEACH to Combat Addiction Act, which I joined with my friend from Ohio, Representative Bill Johnson, in introducing.

One of the biggest challenges that is facing us in the midst of this opioid epidemic is the lack of high-quality addiction treatment in many parts of our country.

Only one in five individuals with opioid use disorder is able to access any type of treatment. In many instances, individuals struggling with addiction can be placed on waiting lists for months or years before they are able to see an addiction professional. That is simply not right.

When we place barriers and roadblocks between patients and their care, we know that these delays can be deadly. We need to move toward a system of treatment on demand so that, when an individual is crying out for assistance, when that person has that moment of clarity, there is a helping hand ready to meet them.

This legislation helps us in a way that moves us in that direction by investing in our addiction infrastructure. The TEACH to Combat Addiction Act would create centers of excellence in substance use disorder education that would be charged with developing and disseminating model curricula to train our next generation of medical professionals on the practice of addiction.

Empowering our healthcare workforce to better understand and effectively prevent and treat substance use disorder will yield dividends in our fight against the opioid epidemic.

I am proud to work with Representative Johnson on this critical legislation that will strengthen the tools and information we use to educate the next generation of healthcare professionals, and I strongly urge all Members to support this critical legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Right to Try Act.

This ideologically driven legislation is trying to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist.

Every single Member of this body supports allowing terminally ill individuals to seek access to experimental treatments that could be potentially lifesaving. However, we have to do so in a structured way that won't undermine the role of the FDA in guaranteeing that the medications we all use are safe and are effective.

I believe the FDA's current expanded access program meets that test by ensuring proper informed consent and adverse event reporting and establishes the appropriate safeguards around access to experimental drugs.

The legislation before us would take the FDA out of the process completely and would allow a black market of snake oil salesmen to emerge, with unscrupulous companies selling untested drugs to a broad array of individuals, including those with manageable chronic conditions like diabetes.

Make no mistake about it: this legislation offers false hope to seriously ill individuals and will put patients at risk.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this June, President Trump announced that it was Infrastructure Week. He declared it again last August, and then again in February, when he rolled out a proposal that was about 15 percent the size of what he promised. And this week, well, you won't be surprised that it is Infrastructure Week again.

In a year and a half of the Trump Presidency, we have had four Infrastructure Weeks, but no real infrastructure bill, no solution, and no problem solving. Many of our roads, bridges, pipes, electric lines, railroads, ports and airports need our help. They are crumbling, structurally unsound, or simply out of date.

Instead of being bold and proposing a plan like President Eisenhower did, our current President proposed selling off these critical public systems to the highest bidder and sticking local taxpayers with the rest of the bill. That is a bad deal.

Democrats have A Better Deal to rebuild America by putting our money where our mouth is, investing $1 trillion in helping to jump-start 16 million middle class construction jobs. That is a better deal. That is what America deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I speak, this evening, joining with some members of SEEK. You heard earlier from the gentlewoman from Maine, who spoke of the SNAP cuts, the nutrition cuts. Congresswoman Pingree is absolutely right: It is a big portion of the farm bill.

But, beyond that, I am horrified with this current farm bill that proposes many harmful provisions that would completely disregard some very bedrock environmental laws. As one of the cochairs of SEEK, which aims for sustainable outcomes for energy and environment policy, you must speak to this bill, because it is so dreadful as it relates to our environmental and energy policy.

This bill weakens environmental and public health protections against pesticides, many of which were established to protect the health of our children. Those protections that would be destroyed by this farm bill include allowing companies to spray pesticides into our waterways without even obtaining a Clean Water Act permit, endangering sources of drinking water and places where we swim and where we fish; preempts local governments from taking steps to protect their communities from pesticides; and weakens protections for endangered species by eliminating the requirement to consult with Federal wildlife experts.

These pesticides can elevate the risk of cancer and other chronic diseases.

Removal of Clean Water Act protections, and the preemption of local efforts to protect communities, puts our public health at great risk.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified the pesticide glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. The United States Geological Survey routinely finds glyphosate in our United States waterways.

EPA's scientific review found that the pesticide chlorpyrifos in water and on food is unsafe for children and increases the risk of learning disabilities. Prenatal exposures to this chemical are associated with reduced IQ and delayed motor development. Whenever chlorpyrifos is sprayed, it can cause immediate and long-term health harms to kids, to farmers, to farmworkers, and others who are exposed.

These provisions also put our wildlife at risk. Decades ago, bald eagles and peregrine falcons were brought to the brink of extinction by the pesticide DDT.

To address such issues, the EPA is required, under the Endangered Species Act, to consult with the expert Federal wildlife agencies when approving chemicals that can harm endangered species. This bill eliminates that requirement, threatening endangered wildlife and hindering recovery of imperiled species.

Our farm bill is about supporting farmers, strengthening communities, and providing food for America. Rolling back public health and wildlife protections has no place in this bill.

The cuts of $23-plus billion in SNAP benefits, kicking an estimated 1 million households off of the program and affects 265,000 children out of free school meals is torturous in its own right.

Someone, today, earlier said: When I was a kid, my money for food programs, for lunch programs was taken by the school. Now Congress is taking the money for school lunch programs away from the kids.

Cuts of $800 million in conservation funding are devastating to our environment, and the cutting of vital funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency in our rural communities, which will eliminate the Rural Energy for America Program, is going to be a great consequence of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was compelled to come to the floor and join with my colleagues as a member of SEEK that is looking for sustainable energy and environment outcomes to speak against this bill, which is going to hurt the progress over the last decades that speaks to agriculture in America, farming in America, and the quality of life for children and families across this great land.

Mr. Speaker, prescription drug prices are skyrocketing. Every day, constituents tell me about outrageous prices they are forced to pay for medications just to stay healthy.

Janice from Albany, in my district, wrote me last year about a drug she takes to manage her mental illness. Her monthly cost went from $9 to $342.

Irene from Hagaman has said her monthly prescriptions have jumped from $35 to $250.

Regina from Rexford saw the monthly cost of her rheumatoid arthritis medicine jump from $2,800 to $3,700 in just one year. That is a bad deal.

Every Member of this body has heard these stories. Despite these cries for help from our constituents, Congress has failed to act. President Trump made lowering prescription drug prices a centerpiece of his campaign. What has he done about it?

America leads the world in developing new and innovative lifesaving cures, something we should be proud to continue; but many of our own citizens don't have real access to those innovative treatments. That is a bad deal. Drug pricing is complex, but in the richest Nation on Earth, no one should have to go bankrupt to obtain lifesaving medicine. We have to do better.

We need greater transparency, more aggressive negotiation, no more pay- for-delay on generic drugs, and more. Democrats have a better deal to offer the American people.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act.

First, let me recognize the hard work done by Mr. Shimkus on this bill. He has been tireless in this effort. And to his and his staff's credit, he has worked with us to make what I believe are a number of improvements to the given bill. Regardless of your position on nuclear energy, we have to acknowledge the reality that tens of thousands of tons of waste already exist. This is a problem for over 120 host communities across our country, and it will not be solved by continuing to ignore it.

But even if you do not represent one of those communities, all of our constituents are paying for this waste. Decades ago, the Federal Government entered into agreements to remove it from nuclear plants. Deadlines have been missed, and now all taxpayers have a legal liability of over $34 billion, which is being paid from the Treasury's Judgment Fund.

In my view, the most important thing this bill does is set up a path forward on interim storage, which will allow spent nuclear fuel to be stored in a consolidated location on a temporary basis while a permanent repository is pursued.

The bill includes language based upon a proposal developed by our colleague, Doris Matsui, to allow the Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement to establish an interim storage pilot program, which can move forward directly after enactment.

Consolidating waste at a small number of sites instead of 121 communities across our country will help ensure waste is managed more safely and securely while allowing those 121 sites to begin to be redeveloped for other purposes.

I know a number of our colleagues have concerns with this bill, and I understand their position. And many Members that support this bill, including myself, have not passed judgment on the merits or final disposition of the Yucca Mountain project. That is why Members of the minority demanded a number of troubling Nevada-related provisions be removed from the bill during the committee process.

This bill will not rubber-stamp the Yucca permitting application. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will still need to adjudicate the many remaining issues with the application, and it will need appropriations in order to do so.

I know we will hear about the challenges of transporting spent fuel to a final repository, but the reality is nuclear material is already moved around our country today without incident due to strict safety requirements. The only alternative to not moving this waste is keeping it spread out in 121 locations for tens of thousands of years.

Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction toward beginning to address our Nation's very difficult nuclear waste issues, which is why it was reported out of committee by a vote of 49-4.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), our outstanding ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it is very rare that we consider a perfect bill. This is not the bill Mr. Pallone or I would have written on our own, and I do not think it is a bill Mr. Shimkus would have wanted on his own either, but that is the nature of compromise.

I again want to thank Mr. Shimkus and his staff for their willingness to work with us to address a number of our concerns with the initial bill.

And I want to acknowledge the hard work done by Tuley Wright, Rick Kessler, and other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee minority staff, who worked so diligently on this legislation.

I truly understand the concerns raised by my colleagues in opposition, especially those from the Nevada delegation, and I sympathize with many of their arguments, but the reality is our Nation has a substantial amount of nuclear waste, and we as a Nation need a plan to address it.

We are dealing with the constraints of legislation passed some 30 years ago, and within those constraints, I believe this bill is a step in the right direction to address our Nation's nuclear waste issues.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I know that this takes the issue and the response of this bill and makes it even stronger. With that in mind, I thank my colleague and those with whom he worked on this amendment for their input, and for, again, an amendment that makes the response so much stronger.

With that, I plan to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I stand in support of the amendment.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from New York for their hard work on the amendment and for the sensitivity shown the people in host communities for our nuclear facilities across our country.

Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and encourage our colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, on May 7, 2018, I was engaged in official business in my Congressional District and was not present to vote on H.R. 4910 or H.R. 4335.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on H.R. 4910 and YEA on

Mr. Speaker, last year, this Chamber rammed through a tax cut for billionaires and wealthy corporations, paid for on the backs of America's middle class. You don't hear them talk about it much anymore though because it was a very bad deal.

This year, the President's budget includes $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicare, and Republicans want to eliminate Medicare and turn it into a voucher. That is a bad deal.

The President's budget includes a $1.4 trillion cut to Medicaid. My Republican colleagues have tried to cut Medicaid time and time again with ACA repeals. Those are a bad deal.

Today, more than half of our seniors would live in poverty without Social Security. They rely on Medicare and Medicaid to care for them in their golden years--from doctors' visits to prescription drugs to nursing homes. After all, seniors pay toward these programs through their entire working life.

Democrats have plans to strengthen Social Security, strengthen Medicare, and strengthen Medicaid. That is a better deal, and America and her people deserve a better deal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep sadness that I rise to celebrate the extraordinary life of our great friend, colleague, mentor, inspiration, and much-respected Congresswoman, Louise Slaughter.

We met a long time ago in 1983, when both of us entered as freshmen in the New York State Assembly. I understood in that moment of meeting that there was greatness there, and it only built beyond what I anticipated through the years.

Louise was a woman of great respect, of great charm, of intellect, integrity, and passion for doing the right thing. And, Louise, this evening, we just say thank you for the impact that you have had on our lives and, more importantly, on the people for whom you have spoken and for those who have been impacted favorably by your sound works.

We call to mind this evening the people of the 25th Congressional District of New York, who have lost a great voice in this Chamber, and those of other districts' iterations that she represented through the years that she served in this remarkable body.

We call to mind Don and her Rules staff. People who were there as committee people assisting her in her every move. We call to mind Liam and her crew here in D.C. and at home in the district office, and certainly her family and friends, people who have worked with her through the years.

It is a great loss for all of us.

Louise did everything with charm. When Louise introduced herself to newly elected House Speaker Jim Wright as a newly entering Member back in 1986, she spoke in that wonderful upstate New York accent, inflected with her deep Kentucky roots, which Speaker Wright immediately discerned.

In her very forward way, she threw out her hand to shake his, and she introduced herself to the new Speaker: Mr. Speaker, I'm Louise Slaughter from upstate New York.

And he responded: It's about time upstate New York elected somebody without an accent.

Louise was a great storyteller. She had this way of really personalizing an issue and making it so human that you couldn't shake. She brought the relevance of issues to human life. There was no better storyteller than Louise Slaughter, and she peppered everything with her unique and delightful sayings that were such a signature of her personality.

She was a person of extraordinary integrity and courage. I remember sitting with her and some of our colleagues when Bob passed, her late husband. I know how much she loved him and how much he loved her, and I cannot imagine the pain she felt in that moment. But I watched her steel herself, pick herself up and go on, just the way Bob would have been wanted, an expression of the deepest love and respect I have ever been privileged to witness.

Louise had a devotion to public service that was born of the 1960s in a truly aspirational moment for our country, an era that gave birth to a newfound driven political generation. And I like to imagine Louise in that moment listening to the voices of the people, reading news of conflict, of hope for racial and social justice, of fights for peace in the face of seemingly endless war in Vietnam, and empowering women and speaking for our environment, all set with extraordinary music.

Bob Dylan's ``Blowin' In The Wind'' gave us a series of intractable questions about peace, about war, about freedom, at a time when those questions were on the lips of every single American. And Louise, speaking about blowing in the wind, was never a weather vane politician. Amidst the uncertainty and conflict of that moment, she forged herself a backbone of steel and never wavered, never blew with the wind. She did what was right, and it didn't have to be popular.

Bob had a love and passion for politics as great as his wonderful wife, Louise. They were such a Washington couple. Bob would sometimes drive Louise back and forth from Rochester, New York, to Albany. He was known as an incredibly thoughtful and brilliant partner who supported Louise tirelessly.

Their activism began with their fight to protect Hart's Woods in Perinton, just outside of Rochester. Louise would go on to organize Democrats in Perinton, and Bob went on to found the Genesee Valley People's Power Coalition, fighting against rate increases by Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.

Bob and Louise loved their family above all, and tonight I want to recognize their daughters--Megan Secatore, Amy Slaughter, and Emily Robin Minerva--and thank them and their families for the gift of their mother's time and their unselfish giving of her so that she could serve our Nation.

Megan and Amy and Emily, this Nation owes you a debt of thanks for the extraordinary spirit and achievement of your parents, our great and dearly departed friends, Louise and Bob Slaughter. I have to speak of them as a team.

Louise left her imprint on all whom she served in Rochester and in Washington and for a generation yet unborn. Louise's passion and foresight live on through the lasting and extraordinary legacy of her work and through the service that she provided, knowing that that service will continue long into the future.

She was recognized as a fighter for the common, ordinary person, and that is the greatest tribute we can offer her. We say thank you to a humble servant who picked up the task and did it masterfully well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York's 16th Congressional District (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York's Seventh Congressional District (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York's 17th Congressional District (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), from New York's 12th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Representative Yvette Clarke of New York's Ninth Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) from New York's 10th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Representative John Katko from New York's 24th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Representative John Lewis, who represents Georgia's Fifth Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Brother John for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Representative Nancy Pelosi from California, our former Speaker, our Democratic leader, our minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). Representative Anna Eshoo represents the 18th District.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur.) Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur represents Ohio's Ninth District.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Kaptur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). Representative Sheila Jackson Lee is the Congresswoman from the 18th District of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Representative Barbara Lee of California's 13th District.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to Representative Jackie Speier of California's 14th District.

I thank the Congresswoman for those comments.

I now yield to Representative Alma Adams of North Carolina's 12th District.

I thank the Congresswoman for her thoughts.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the New Hampshire District One Representative, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter.

I thank the Congresswoman for those comments.

Mr. Speaker, now we will hear from the gentleman from Texas 35, Congressman Lloyd Doggett.

Mr. Speaker, there you have it, just a few of the colleagues of Louise Slaughter who shared their sentiments. You can tell that she had this lasting touch upon each and every one of us.

We are made better because we crossed paths in life, we travelled journeys together, and she will leave a forever quality in our hearts and our souls. And to our champion, our trailblazer, the true voice for the weak voice or underheard in government, the pioneer expression, the drum major for women, it goes on and on--she earned so many labels--to our friend, Louise Slaughter, our colleague, our mentor, rest in peace, beloved friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Marcy, it is an honor to be on the floor this evening. We have joined together many times to share a message for the American public about the fight for what is right. No one leads that fight better than you. We have assembled here to celebrate the extraordinary career of our great colleague and friend from Ohio, my friend from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur.

Marcy is a towering giant in the history of Congress. Her legislative achievements are too numerous to count. Her work led the way in the creation of the moving and so powerful World War II Memorial on the National Mall. What great respect for our veterans. And that is who you are, a respectful individual.

Marcy was one of the first Members of Congress to raise the alarm for

America's workers and industries facing unfair competition from trade policies around the world.

She has been a champion of America's farmers, fighting tirelessly to protect the rights of poultry growers and restore some balance to our Nation's increasing consolidated meat industry.

She continues to be a champion and a visionary in the fight to bring down skyrocketing prescription drug costs; to restore stability and good sense to our financial system; and to save the Great Lakes and the millions who rely on their resources from the harmful algal blooms-- blooms that threaten to poison their rich waters.

There is no Member in this or any Congress who is more committed to serving the needs of her constituents and her district. While she has proven to be truly formidable to her opponents, Marcy is as kind as she is fierce.

In just a few days, this Sunday, March 18, Marcy will become the longest serving woman in the history of the United States House of Representatives. What a proud achievement. What a proud moment. What a great moment in history to witness and share: 35 years, 2 months and 14 days, but who is counting?

Those numbers are the official numbers that surpass the record set by former Massachusetts Representative Edith Nourse Rogers. Her enduring service has met more than three decades whereby girls have grown up in Ohio and all across America seeing that they, too, could serve and lead in the United States Congress, an impressive example that my friend, Marcy Kaptur, continues to set.

I am more than pleased and more than a little relieved to say that Marcy is as passionate and driven as the day we met nearly a decade ago.

As the longest serving woman remaining in either Chamber, God willing, in a few years, Marcy will become the longest serving woman in the history of the United States Congress. It is my great hope that I will have the privilege to witness that historic moment, just as I am humbled to share in this one.

I want to thank Marcy Kaptur for years of our friendship, our collaboration, our conversations, our coaching--her coaching, I should say--on the floor between votes and in Special Orders here on the floor after session, and for always upholding the values we share in service of the American people.

Speaking of values, we cherish the bond that we both hold with a common Polish heritage, something that I know causes her heart to pound nobly and boldly and proudly.

Marcy, you are a unique individual, a one-of-a-kind human being. You are a living legend, a leader with a steel backbone, and a treasure of this Congress and our great Nation.

We say thank you for your passion. We say thank you for your intellect. We say thank you for your integrity, and we say thank you for leading in the walk for justice, social and economic justice, so that all people can be touched by your soulfulness and your kind and loving being.

God Bless you. Congratulations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1119, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, or SENSE, Act.

The SENSE Act continues the theme of the floor this week, giving unnecessary preferences to a handful of special interests at the expense of clean air and people's health.

The SENSE Act would weaken requirements of EPA's Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, for power plants that burn waste coal by enabling a weaker compliance option for hydrochloric acid and sulfur dioxide

emissions. To make matters worse, the bill prevents EPA from strengthening these standards for waste coal pants in the future even if pollution control technologies become significantly better or less expensive.

I think we are all proud of the record of the Clean Air Act. As a nation, we have made significant progress since the 1970s, reducing air pollution while growing our economy.

This bill is against the spirit of the Clean Air Act and the bipartisan amendments that have followed. We should not lock in an insufficient standard when progress is still possible.

Polluters should be pushed to do better, especially when comparable facilities are meeting those given standards; but instead, these power plant owners would prefer to get special treatment and a pathway for meeting the weaker standards for many, many years to come. All the while, these plants will produce harmful air pollution.

This is not only dangerous but unnecessary. The health risks of these pollutants are well documented, and it is, in fact, possible for waste coal plants to meet EPA's MATS. A number of waste coal units have achieved the standards, and pollution control technologies exist that would enable noncompliant facilities to meet them, too.

EPA's MATS have already been examined by the courts, which would not grant an exclusion for waste coal utilities. The courts did not agree with waste coal plant owners that these standards were impossible to meet.

EPA established that 8 out of 19 waste coal units nationwide could meet the rules' acid gas standard or alternative sulfur dioxide standard already. So now those companies are coming to Congress to circumvent the court process.

Last year, every Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee opposed this bill. Those members understood that this bill is simply not fair. It picks winners and losers in States with waste coal plants, it disadvantages traditional coal-fired power generators, and it will allow for more hazardous air pollution. That isn't a good deal for the power generators that are already compliant with the standards, and it is a terrible deal for the people who have to live with more dangerous air pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the SENSE Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), a longtime member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a thoughtful and passionate voice for the greater Pittsburgh area, and for that matter, all of Pennsylvania and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I have no other speakers. I just would make mention that some 18 groups that are public interest groups have joined together in a letter opposing this legislation, suggesting and indicating strongly that it pits waste coal-burning plants against coal-burning plants, that it creates a public health situation that is an outcome that is negative for our constituents, and it basically cites that the courts have reviewed some of the requests made earlier and denied those requests because they felt that technology was available.

I include the letter in the Record.

March 6, 2018.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members,

the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose the amended

Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act, or

SENSE Act (H.R. 1119). This bill would weaken health

safeguards for Americans on behalf of special interest groups

and result in more toxic air pollution and health hazards.

The SENSE Act would provide a giveaway to power plants that

burn waste coal under EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

(MATS). The bill favors waste coal-burning power plants at

the expense of other in-state coal power plants and the

public through blunt political favoritism.

Specifically, the SENSE Act would permanently exempt power

plants that burn waste coal from having to meet certain

pollution limits. Power plants, including waste coal plants,

are already meeting these standards--passing this bill would

be a free giveaway to polluters, and nothing more.

And the courts agree.

When waste coal plant owners filed lawsuits challenging the

MATS standards in the first place, they claimed it was

``virtually impossible'' to meet the acid gas and sulfur

dioxide limits set in MATS. The court rejected the plants'

arguments.

The judges pointed to clear evidence that waste coal plants

already were meeting these limits. EPA had evidence

demonstrating that 8 out of 19 waste coal units nationwide

already could meet the rule's acid gas standard or

alternative sulfur dioxide standard. In fact, the court noted

that not only were the plants meeting these supposedly

``impossible'' standards, but some of these plants were

``among the best performers'' in achieving hydrogen chloride

reductions among all coal-burning units under the rule.''

Doomsday claims to justify this bill are just that. Waste

coal plants have already had more time than other power

plants to come into compliance with MATS. Rewarding laggards

who continue to drag their feet, even after already getting

special treatment, would undermine all pollution reduction

programs and disincentivize compliance.

Were this bill to become law, the result will be dirtier

air for communities. Indeed, the SENSE Act drags health

standards down to the level of the laggards--resulting in

greater harms for Americans living in states with waste coal

plants as well as in their downwind neighboring states. This

bill is not only bad policy--it is unjustified. It favors the

very dirtiest of polluting facilities at the expense of

Americans, air quality, and responsible power plants who have

already taken steps to clean up their air pollution. Worst of

all, it will lead to greater toxic pollution and health harms

to Americans. We urge you to oppose the SENSE Act.

Sincerely,

Center for Biological Diversity; Clean Water Action;

Climate Hawks Vote; Earthjustice; Environment America;

Environmental Defense Fund; Friends of the Earth;

GreenLatinos; Hip Hop Caucus; Interfaith Power & Light;

League of Conservation Voters; Moms Clean Air Force;

National Parks Conservation Association; Natural

Resources Defense Council; Power Shift Network; Public

Citizen; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law

Center.

Madam Speaker, much like the bill considered by the House yesterday, the SENSE Act would provide so-called relief to a handful of companies by shifting the burdens of pollution onto the public. Congress should not be in the business of putting the profits of polluters before the health of our constituents.

The reality is, by allowing these plants to pollute more, we would be doing just that. It will result in greater harm to Americans living in States with waste coal plants as well as in their downwind neighboring States, such as my home State of New York.

EPA's MATS are achievable and provide considerable health benefits. Why shouldn't waste coal plants have to comply? The courts think they should. We shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of special interests over clean air.

Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act.

EPA issued the Brick and Clay MACT rule in 2015, which sets maximum achievable control technology based on what is already being achieved at similar facilities.

Section 2 of the BRICK Act seeks to delay compliance with the Brick and Clay MACT until ``judgment becomes final, and no longer subject to further appeal or review.''

This would incentivize frivolous litigation simply to put off having to comply with the rule.

Courts already have the ability to issue a stay of any compliance dates in a final rule. Congress should not insert itself into the judicial process.

The courts have regularly used this process. There is no reason for Congress to override it.

To date, no one has petitioned the court to stay the Brick and Clay MACT rule.

Section 3 of H.R. 1917 incorporates another bill reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act.

This section, Mr. Speaker, delays implementation of the EPA's step 2 emission standards for three categories of wood-fueled heaters.

EPA finalized the rule in 2015. Under the rule, manufacturers have until 2020 to comply with the new standards. This bill would delay the standards until 2023.

Much like the Brick MACT, these standards are achievable.

In a recent list of devices certified under the 2015 standard, 171 devices report certified emission levels that already meet the 2020 standards.

These 2020-compliant products are both cleaner and more efficient, generating more heat per unit of wood burned and making them less expensive to operate.

By delaying these standards, Congress is unfairly punishing companies that made investments to produce cleaner, more efficient products by the original deadline.

Since these appliances typically last for 25 years or more once installed, delaying this standard will result in decades of additional pollution in and around people's homes.

The original bill, H.R. 453, was opposed by State attorneys general of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

In a letter from December 12, these officials pointed out that EPA estimated the net benefits of implementing the rule at more than 100 times the costs.

Wood smoke contains considerable amounts of fine particle pollution, carbon monoxide, and other toxic pollutants.

In my home State of New York, less than 2 percent of residents heat their homes with wood, but residential wood heating accounts for 41 percent of the State's particulate emissions.

Because the emissions are released close to ground level and homes, there is significant human exposure, which is why this bill is also opposed by a number of public health and medical organizations.

The BRICK Act gives special treatment to a couple of industries by shifting the health and financial burdens of pollution on to the public. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, no one wants to shut down these businesses, but H.R. 1917 is the wrong remedy. We understand the circumstances, and those circumstances should be brought to the attention of the courts.

The court has the power to grant the stay of this rule. For some reason, the industry has not yet made that request, even though there are a number of pending lawsuits challenging the rule. In fact, industry petitioned the court to put their lawsuits on hold until EPA decides whether to grant their request to reconsider the rule.

The pending decisions by the court and the EPA indicate there are still a number of remedies available to address the industry's concerns, including a request to the court to stay the rule. There is no need for H.R. 1917.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of encouraging frivolous litigation or penalizing businesses that made the necessary investments to comply with standards, especially when clean air is at stake.

Unfortunately, that is what the BRICK Act would do. These standards are achievable, long overdue, and provide considerable health benefits. It has been nearly two decades for pollution control standards for brick and clay facilities and nearly three decades since the last Federal standards for wood stoves.

We shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of special interests over clean air for all of our constituents. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the grip of a gun violence epidemic; yet, even in the face of national tragedy, Congress has failed again and again to act.

On January 10, 2018, a student in Denison, Texas, fired a weapon that belonged to an adviser, thinking it wasn't loaded. That same day, a middle school student in Maplewood, Minnesota, fatally injured himself with a gun in a school bathroom.

On January 23, 2018, a 15-year-old student in Benton, Kentucky, opened fire with a handgun, killing two people and injuring 18.

On February 14, Valentine's Day, 2018, a 19-year-old gunman killed 14 students and 3 faculty members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, using a semiautomatic weapon.

Two months into 2018, its tragedies are too numerous to list.

For too long we have allowed NRA's gun industry lobbyists to pick and choose our guns laws.

I say: No more.

Students across America are demanding Congress enact commonsense gun violence prevention, including universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, and a ban on the sale of assault weapons designed not for a hunting field, but for a battlefield.

We must not fail them again.