Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers

like Daniel, a first-generation college student.

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

Certainly I understand the anger, Representative Garamendi, and I know I am not alone. I know all of my colleagues are hearing the outbursts in our given districts about the foolishness and the hard- heartedness of taking away a very valuable asset. Healthcare coverage is so important now to the American public, but in a particular way, it is near and dear to those who most recently realized that coverage.

I will tell you, being on this floor when the Affordable Care Act was passed, that was a monumental effort. It was difficult to launch that program. It took a lot of hard work, years of messaging, going to hearings, working those amendments that were suggested into the discussion, and making certain that the package met the mission that we embarked upon. So it is important now to make certain that we only go forward and upward from this moment.

Like many programs before the Affordable Care Act--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--they were difficult to launch; but unlike those programs, Congress and the Presidents in those given eras came forward and said: Okay. What did we learn from that launch? How can we improve upon the package? How can we strengthen some of the dynamics of concern?

Here we have people, as you indicated, that are not only unwilling to make those reforms possible, but disguising what they call healthcare reform in the name of a tax package for the wealthy. How vulgar is that, when you can sweep the dollars, the savings from denying people healthcare coverage, and utilize it to relieve taxes for those most comfortable in our society? For those 400 households of which you spoke, the on-average relief was on the order of $7 million. Imagine that: taking away healthcare from people who live paycheck to paycheck in some cases, and using that to provide for tax relief for those most comfortable.

That is not in keeping with the spirit of this legislation. It is not in keeping with the harmony that was necessary to create this legislation.

The spirit was to speak to the fundamental needs of healthcare for individuals and families across this country to be able to get past difficult moments and situations like preexisting conditions, preexisting conditions that can be with an individual toddler from the moment of birth, as we have heard in the news.

This hard-hearted approach, this senseless attitude, this insensitive expression to Americans across this country by these reform efforts, today we know that the United States Senate went forth with a vote to proceed on their efforts. What will it be? Straightforward repeal, as the President recommends, where 30-plus million people lose their healthcare coverage, you rip it away from those tens of millions? Or will it be repeal and delay? Or will it be repeal and replace?

So far with the iterations, the versions of healthcare reform that have come forth from this House, that were approved in this House and sent over to the Senate, those devised by the Senate have been heartless.

This is about expressing compassion, about being just and fair.

Just this weekend I was with groups of constituents. The first that comes to mind is a fundraising effort for individuals who live with cystic fibrosis. Before I was even to walk into the room, where hundreds of people gathered to support the efforts for this cause, individual sets of parents came to me and said: Keep up the fight to keep Medicaid in the equation.

Our daughter, our son, can't do it without Medicaid. And these people were proud of their given children, adult children, in some cases, who had graduated with honors, played athletics and were athletes, star athletes in their high school years who, then, earned full scholarships to college. And his daughter made him most proud; he cited that moment of pride when he witnessed her on her campus wheeling her IV to class.

That is what we see out there, motivation, inspiration, respect for people who live with difficult challenges in life. And we were responding as a compassionate society, one that should separate us from the rest of the world because, within our abundance, we want to share that with everybody.

And it is so wonderful, Representative Garamendi, that you would bring that quote from the memorial, that speaks to the abundance of those who have where we are, evidently, with some of the constructs of legislation here, adding to that abundance, at the expense of those who have precious little. And so we can do better than this.

One other gathering that I attended was for developmentally disabled, differently-abled individuals whose programs focus and strengthen their abilities, focus upon and strengthen their abilities; again, people approaching me saying: Keep up the fight for Medicaid.

We cannot, our consumers cannot, do it. Our loved ones cannot do it without Medicaid. And I think the rejection of Medicaid expansion in this House that was offered by this House, by this town, by Washington, to the many States across the country, the rejection by those States, I believe, was sheer politics. And so, we denied people in States who pay Federal taxes the benefits of Medicaid expansion.

What sense does that make? What heart does that show? We are better than that. We are better than that.

Finally, I will say this, because I know we have colleagues who are looking to share their thoughts and their stories. I looked at some constituents this weekend, in the eyes, and in heartfelt conversation said: Do you think it is fair, do you think it is just to rip away healthcare from people so you can afford a tax cut for the very wealthy? Is it fair to deny preexisting condition coverage for individuals? Is it unfair to take it away?

What about the essential health benefits package, those of our neighbors and friends who struggle, who live with mental illness and mental health disorders, those who are dealing with the illness of addiction? Is it fair not to help them?

I looked at them, and I said: Okay, I know who you voted for. This is a nation where we have the freedom of choice. But when we vote for whomever, it is also our duty, our responsibility to see if they are acting accordingly. Do you think your candidate of choice is being fair and just?

They couldn't answer me about that situation. They wanted to redirect the conversation. Why?

Because I think it is difficult to say that people, leaders in this town, the President and leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate, are not listening to America; and so it is unfair to utilize the sweeping of services, of healthcare and response to tens of millions of individuals and families, and utilize those dollars for a tax cut for the wealthy.

We are going to watch this aggressively, with laser sharp focus. The people of America have spoken. They are continuing to speak. They don't like the injustices. They don't like the unfairness. They don't like the calculated ripping away of healthcare insurance for tens of millions of people. Whether it is 30, 23, 22, 21, whatever the iteration, shame on us for allowing something like that to happen.

America deserves to be--as an industrialized nation that did not have access, affordability, and quality of care as givens for many households in this country, they need to express those terms in a much better format.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Garamendi for leading us in a discussion this hour to alert people to the fact that the Democrats in this House are still battling for those families that would have healthcare coverage ripped from them so that we can afford a tax cut for the wealthy.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and, Representative Garamendi, I am so honored to associate my comments with those of yours, to connect with you in this effort to make certain that we stop this foolishness coming from this House and the United States Senate that totally rejects the pleas of Americans across this country to make certain that the dynamics that drove the Affordable Care Act still stay in place, and that being affordability, accessibility, and quality of care. Those are such essential forces. They are the underpinning of the foundation of the Affordable Care Act.

When I heard your expression of concern here tonight and pinpointing those various elements of the positive reinforcement that comes from the Affordable Care Act legislation, hearing the voice of two Congresswomen here from New Mexico and Ohio on the floor joining us, it reminds me that our force is the essential force on the Hill in Washington to make certain that the people's voices are heard. There is anger out there, there is injustice, there is unfairness, and it has to be addressed.

I am proud of the efforts that have been made in my State. I know that you talked about the progress in California. In New York, I am proud of what the Governor, Governor Cuomo, and the legislature did in building those exchanges. It took response from each of the 50 States to make this work, or at least we had hoped each State would respond fully. But in New York, we are managing that effort through sound exchanges.

I get worried when I see tweets from the President when things didn't work for awhile in the Senate, when they couldn't move forward with the repeal or repeal and delay or repeal and replace: Well, we will just let the Affordable Care Act die of its own right.

What are you talking about? That sounds to me like a poor attitude, one that wouldn't do the very best to underpin, through the agencies that are connected to this legislation, to reinforce the markets out there. That is part of this response.

When I hear an attitude like that expressed, I am concerned about what the voice over to these agencies will be saying: Look, we need to be a good partner, a sound partner, an effective partner with the Affordable Care Act.

I don't know if we would get that. So that worries me if your attitude is let it just die and crumble. Why? Why can't you put the American public before politics?

Let's do our best effort. Let's, in earnest, do our best. Let's be genuine in our approach.

I think it is absolutely incredible. You know, as the Republicans, Representative Garamendi, in the Senate race to pass TrumpCare, a bill that would rip coverage away from tens of millions of people, perhaps as many as 30 million--if you would allow me to share a few stories from my district, I think it is so important to put a face onto these discussions. I have documented some of the recent stories we have heard from constituents.

Cathryn, a 30-year-old in my district, left work to return to school to pursue graduate studies in social work, and she used the ACA exchange, their plans, to bridge gaps in employer-based coverage.

The ACA plans provided her with essential preventative healthcare services and ensured that a major health event would not leave her bankrupt as she was doing what we asked people to do: develop your talent and your skills to serve the general public.

So she was pursuing graduate studies. The security and affordability of Catherine's ACA plan was tremendously reassuring, allowing her to take risks in order to build a career in service to others. That is what the ACA afforded Catherine to do, a 30-year-old in my district.

Robert, a 52-year-old in my district, purchased insurance on a healthcare exchange while suffering from diabetes. Before buying an exchange plan, Robert spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars each month just to purchase insulin, and no other health coverage.

Because of the ban on discrimination that could be utilized against him based on his preexisting conditions, Robert can now afford a health plan that covers himself and his family.

A couple of other examples, if you will allow me.

Tracey, a 38-year-old from my district, a certified nursing assistant, needs multiple drug prescriptions to treat preexisting conditions, including diabetes. The Affordable Care Act has made it possible for Tracey to get health coverage for herself and her family. Without the ACA, Tracey would not be able to pay her doctors or her drug companies. As recently as January, Tracey was still paying off old bills for her medical care.

This has provided hope for people. We need to make certain we don't have people digging deeper into their pockets for healthcare coverage. We want to relieve that pressure that is upon them. We want to make prescription drugs affordable. We want to make certain that efficiencies are there in the system so we can save, but get the care to people.

That is the difference that we need to cite here. The contrast is that we are trying to make this ACA better and make it work, and we are asking for a bipartisan, bicameral, executive legislative partnership to make it better. Is that too much to ask?

Let me share one more story.

Elliot, a 56-year-old in the 20th Congressional District of New York lost his job in September last year after his company made a massive layoff, even though he just started his job. So through no fault of his own, he lost his employment. Elliot was then left to figure out how to support himself and his 19-year-old son who was a Syracuse University student. A COBRA plan would have cost $2,000 a month. Because of Medicaid, Elliot and his son now have quality health coverage as Elliot continues to look for work and his son is pursuing his college education.

These are real stories, real hardships, real challenges, real help, real assistance that has come in the way of these families. We don't need to take that good news and suffocate it. We need to build upon these stories.

Now, Senate Republicans are racing to pass a bill that would open the doors to less coverage, rip it away from tens of millions of people, and in many ways perhaps provide for an imposition of lifetime limits on care.

What does that do?

It is a death sentence for far too many people. It would impact severely upon those who are struggling with cancer--working their hardest to defeat that, working with their doctor, their medical community to defeat that impact of cancer in their lives--heart disease, and other long-term illnesses.

My friends, this is about being a compassionate voice. It is about utilizing the advancements in medical care, technology, making affordable our healthcare system, making affordable prescription drug costs.

There is improvements that we want to make, not give a tax cut for the rich, which has been a terrible response. People would say: Oh, the Affordable Care Act is not working.

So if there were improvements required, be fair, be only honest with the public you represent, be there for them.

Finally, the last point I will make right here is Medicaid and the changing profile of Medicaid in many of our States. In New York, people need to see where the growth in Medicaid is. And because we have a disproportionate senior population in upstate New York, you are seeing the growth of Medicaid the farther north you go.

I ask my colleagues to be sensitive to their constituent base. Don't be heartless. Don't be cruel in the outcome. Walk away from this.

The silence is deafening at times when it comes to some of the proposals being sent by leadership in this House and in the Senate. Silence is not what is called for here. Outspoken rejection of some of these harsh measures is what we need, and bipartisan cooperation, bicameral activity is what will serve the public best.

So I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing us together in what is a very important discussion here in this Special Order.

To repeat what my colleague just said, I will say that we want to work with the American public. We have said over and over again that it is about affordability, accessibility, quality of care. Share with us the improvements that you think will work. Let us know of the hurdles in the road that you have faced.

Remind us that Medicaid serves the needs of our parents and grandparents in nursing homes. Remind us that those who are born with challenges in life are served well by healthcare coverage and Medicaid. Remind us that those living with developmental disabilities, showcasing their abilities requires Medicaid to make it work; chronic illnesses requiring an insurance clause that addresses preexisting conditions, building upon an essential health benefits package.

We are with you. We walk with you. We raise our voices with you. We lift our hearts with you. We want to be victorious with you and for you. Let's not let them rip away this health insurance for the opportunity to provide tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Again, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak forcefully in this given Special Order. It is so important to save the Affordable Care Act, make it stronger, and respond to the needs of people across this country who are speaking out.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem.

We heard from FERC that 88 percent of projects are certified within 1 year following a completed application. It is clear that, under the existing process, these projects are moving forward without significant delays.

We have not seen good evidence that we need to further tilt the process in favor of pipeline companies, which is what the bill before us today would do.

While I am concerned about a number of provisions in this bill, I specifically want to highlight the section that would require Federal and State agencies to accept aerial survey data, such as data collected by drones, and allow these agencies to grant conditional approvals based on that data.

Aerial data have limitations and can be insufficient. These data may not account for historic sites, endangered species, or wetlands. But, under this bill, agencies would be required to consider the project.

Granting conditional permits based on inadequate data will ultimately not speed up the process, but what it does instead is circumvent the rights of landowners.

We also should be more thoughtful about changing this process, given the implications that will impact private landowners' rights.

Under the law, pipeline companies are able to use eminent domain authority, allowing these corporations to take private property to build their pipelines. This bill would further restrict the already limited opportunities that private landowners and concerned citizens have to weigh in on proposed projects.

Streamlining is fine, but we are considering expediting a process that can result in the use of eminent domain. The bar for seizing private property should be high, and lowering that bar is to the detriment of private landowners.

Historically, when considering the use of eminent domain, the question has been: Is it in the public's interest?

But this bill is forcing the question to shift to: Is it in the company's interest?

That is not acceptable to me, and it certainly isn't acceptable to the general public.

If we continue to expedite and rubber stamp these projects, consumers will be on the hook for unviable and, eventually, stranded assets.

We need to look at our energy infrastructure based on holistic, regional needs that take into account how many projects are under consideration and how it would impact existing infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, which would undermine the Clean Air Act and the decades of progress that we have made to improve our Nation's public health and air quality.

This bill delays implementation of the 2015 ozone standards until 2025, extends the review cycle for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards from 5 to 10 years, and authorizes the EPA administrator to consider technological feasibility when establishing or revising a

Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that, when we move the timeframe for accomplishment of our progress by 8 years out into the future, we are stalling progress; and when we tamper with a review every 5 years and make it 10, we are denying progress.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have just heard from two colleagues from Texas, and I want to remind all of my colleagues, our colleagues, that the State of Texas has over 1.5 million residents with asthma, including some 430,000 children. Weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act would put their health at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Chairman, having just heard from the gentleman from Arizona, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of Arizona has over 660,000 residents with asthma, including some 175,000 children. Weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act would put their health at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Chair, having heard from my friend and colleague from West Virginia, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of West Virginia has 100,000 residents with asthma, including over 18,000 children. So it is weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act that would put these populations at risk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

As I earlier stated, the State of Arizona has over 660,000 residents with asthma, including 175,000 children; and I just question putting their health at risk with this bill that moves us in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a number of supporting documents. The first is a letter opposing the bill signed by the State Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and the Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

April 26, 2017.

Re Opposition to H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act

of 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman,

Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member,

Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Walden and Representative Pallone: We

write in opposition to H.R. 806, Ozone Standards

Implementation Act of 2017. This bill would not only delay

implementation of more protective ozone air quality

standards, but, more broadly, would undermine the mandate in

the Clean Air Act (Act) that the national ambient air quality

standards for ozone and other criteria pollutants be based on

up-to-date scientific evidence and focus solely on protecting

public health and welfare. As explained below, these measures

would be a significant step backward in combatting the

dangers of ozone and other criteria pollutants.

Many of our states have struggled for decades with the

pervasive problem of ozone pollution. The scientific evidence

of harm to public health from ozone pollution is well

established, as are the economic consequences. At certain

concentration levels, ozone irritates the respiratory system,

causing coughing, wheezing, chest tightness and headaches.

People exposed to elevated levels of ozone suffer from lung

tissue damage, and aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, heart

disease, and emphysema. Children, older adults, people with

asthma or other lung diseases, and people who are active

outdoors are particularly susceptible to the harmful health

effects of ozone. Public health harms also exact an economic

toll. For example, increased hospital admissions on bad ozone

days increase health care costs borne by states and local

governments. Ozone pollution also harms public welfare by

damaging trees and reducing crop yields by interfering with

the ability of plants to produce and store food and making

them more susceptible to disease, insect pests, and other

stressors. Ozone can also inhibit the ability of plants and

trees to mitigate harms from climate change.

To protect against these and other adverse impacts and ``to

promote the public health and welfare and the productive

capacity of its population,'' the Act aims ``to protect and

enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources.'' 42

U.S.C. Sec. 7401(b)(1). To achieve this goal, the Act

requires EPA to adopt primary standards for certain criteria

pollutants, such as ozone, at a level that protects public

health with an ``adequate margin of safety.'' 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 7409(b)(1). The Act also requires EPA to adopt secondary

standards at a level that protects the public welfare from

``any known or anticipated adverse effects.'' 42 U.S.C.

Sec. 7409(b)(2). The Act mandates that EPA review the air

quality standards for each criteria pollutant every five

years and revise the standards as advances in science

warrant. As Justice Scalia explained for a unanimous Supreme

Court, EPA's review must set the primary and secondary

standards based on the scientific evidence, and may not

consider implementation costs or other economic consequences.

Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 465 (2001).

Rather, implementation decisions are a matter for states,

which are empowered to evaluate the costs and co-benefits of

potential implementation strategies and determine, in light

of those costs and co-benefits, which strategies are most

suitable for them. See Union Elec. Corp. v. EPA, 427 U.S.

246, 266 (1976).

To ensure that our residents and natural resources enjoy

the benefits of the clean air that the statute demands, our

offices have advocated in rulemakings and litigation that EPA

set standards that protect public health and welfare with an

adequate margin of safety, as the Act requires. E.g.,

Mississippi v. EPA, 744 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (State

petitioners, including New York, California, Connecticut,

Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico,

Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia,

successfully argued for remand of secondary ozone standards);

American Farm Bureau Fed. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir.

2009) (State petitioners and amici, including New York,

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, and the District of

Columbia, successfully argued for remand of primary fine

particulate matter standards); Murray Energy v. EPA (D.C.

Cir. 15-1385) (State amici., including California Air

Resources Board, Delaware Department of Natural Resources,

Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the

District of Columbia, filed a brief supporting the 2015

primary ozone standard against attempts to weaken it).

The ozone rule promulgated by EPA in 2015 strengthened the

primary standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. 80

Fed. Reg. 65,292 (Oct. 26, 2015). This level was at the high

end (i.e., less stringent) of the 65-70 ppb range that EPA

proposed in 2014. EPA's independent science advisors, the

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, cautioned that this

level may offer little margin of safety, particularly for

sensitive subpopulations. Therefore, in comments on the

proposal, several of our states urged EPA to adopt a primary

standard lower than 70 ppb to protect public health with an

adequate margin of safety. However, even tightening the

standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb will result in important

public health benefits. For example, EPA conservatively

estimated that meeting the 70 ppb standard nationally (not

including California) will result in net annual public health

benefits of up to $4.5 billion starting in 2025. These

national benefits include preventing approximately: 316 to

660 premature deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in children;

160,000 missed school days; 28,000 missed work days; 630

asthma-related emergency room visits; and 340 cases of

acute bronchitis in children.

Under current law, states will develop and submit their own

plans to attain the 2015 standard by 2020 or 2021. But H.R.

806 would delay this deadline until October 2026 and delay

other similarly related deadlines, postponing even further

the life-saving benefits of attaining clean air. The bill

should be rejected on these grounds alone.

In addition, H.R. 806 would undermine the protection of

health and welfare from the dangers of all criteria air

pollutants by weakening the national ambient air quality

standards process for updating standards based on the most

recent scientific evidence. Instead of requiring that

standards be reviewed--and as necessary, revised--every five

years based on the latest scientific evidence on the harms to

public health and welfare from exposure to criteria

pollutants, H.R. 806 would require updates only once a

decade.

The bill would also eliminate the Act's requirement that

air quality standards be set solely based on adequate

protection of public health and welfare. Specifically, the

bill would authorize the EPA Administrator to also consider

``likely technological feasibility'' in establishing primary

and secondary standards. This provision appears designed to

allow EPA to weaken standards nationwide if it thinks a

single area might be incapable of meeting them. But if that

were ever the case, the Act already provides relief

mechanisms for the affected area. In addition, the bill

undermines the Act's existing protections by creating a

loophole that allows EPA to treat hot or dry weather as an

``exceptional event'' excusing an area's nonattainment.

Finally, the bill appears to be based on a misunderstanding

of the Act's balance between federal and state authority. The

bill directs EPA to cherry-pick hypothetical state

implementation strategies and only evaluate their adverse

side-effects, and, potentially, use that evaluation to weaken

ambient air quality standards. But EPA cannot know at the

time it sets standards what strategies states will choose, or

how individual states will value their beneficial side-

effects. Those considerations should remain separate from the

standard-setting process.

In summary, ozone pollution remains a serious and

persistent problem for our nation, posing a particular risk

to the health of children, the elderly and the sick, as well

as individuals who spend time outdoors. Because H.R. 806

would represent a significant step backward in combatting

ozone and other dangerous criteria pollutants, we urge you to

oppose the bill. Thank you for your attention to this

critical matter.

Sincerely,

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York, Lemuel

Srolovic, Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau, Michael J.

Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Protection

Bureau.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, David A.

Zonana, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Wiener,

Deputy Attorney General.

George Jepsen, Attorney General of Connecticut, Matthew I.

Levine, Kirsten S.P. Rigney, Scott N. Koschwitz, Assistant

Attorneys General, Office of the Attorney General.

Matthew P. Denn, Attorney General of Delaware, Ralph K.

Durstein, III, Valerie S. Edge, Deputy Attorneys General,

Delaware Department of Justice.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Matthew J.

Dunn, Gerald T. Karr, James P. Gignac, Assistant Attorneys

General, Environmental Enforcement Division.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, Jacob Larson,

Assistant Attorney General.

Brian Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Roberta R.

James, Assistant Attorney General.

Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Christophe

Courchesne, Chief, Carol Iancu, Assistant Attorneys General,

Environmental Protection Division, Office of the Attorney

General.

Hector Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, Bill

Grantham, Assistant Attorney General.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Paul

Garrahan, Attorney-in-Charge, Natural Resources Section,

Oregon Department of Justice.

Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Office of

the Attorney General.

Patrick McDonnell, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection.

Peter Kilmartin, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Gregory

S. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General.

Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General of Vermont,

Nicholas F. Persampieri, Assistant Attorney General.

Mark Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, John W. Daniel,

II, Deputy Attorney General, Matthew L. Gooch, Assistant

Attorney General, Environmental Section.

Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington, Katharine G.

Shirey, Assistant Attorney General.

Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the second document I include in the Record is a letter from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, again, opposing the bill.

Office of the Commissioner, New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation,

Albany, NY.

Re H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.

Hon. John Shimkus, Chairman,

Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Energy and

Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul D. Tonko, Ranking Member,

Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Energy and

Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Honorable Chair Shimkus and Representative Tonko: The

State of New York strongly opposes the ``Ozone Standards

Implementation Act of 2017,'' which will substantially harm

public health to the detriment of New Yorkers and residents

of many other states. The proposed bill would restrict the

efficacy of the Clean Air Act in a way that would delay

implementation of critical health-based standards for

protecting the public from harmful ground-level ozone and

other dangerous air pollutants. The result of this proposed

bill would be the significant postponement of health and

environmental benefits for nearly a decade, inevitably

resulting in increased illness and deaths from air pollution.

Introduction

The Clean Air Act (``Act'') addresses the critically

important issue of protecting the health and welfare of all

Americans from excessive levels of air pollution. It

establishes a federal-state partnership under which EPA,

informed by established science, sets National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) at a level necessary to protect

public health, and states develop and implement plans for

achieving those standards. This collaborative process has

significantly reduced pollutant concentrations to the great

benefit of the public. Importantly, the process provided by

the sections 109 and 110 of the Act recognizes that air

pollution knows no boundaries and that air quality in many

states, including New York, is impacted by emissions from

sources located upwind.

Section 109 of the Act ensures that implementation of the

Act is guided by established science; it charges the Clean

Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) with reviewing the

latest ``state of the science'' relating to public and

environmental health, and conveying its findings to the

Administrator. Based on that information, the Administrator

establishes the NAAQS at a level necessary to protect public

health within a reasonable margin of safety. Under Section

110 of the Act, States then develop plans to achieve air

quality that meets the standard in those areas that do not

meet the standard, known as ``nonattainment'' areas.

In its latest review, CASAC determined that the existing

2008 ozone NAAQS was insufficiently protective of public

health, particularly for at-risk groups including children,

older adults, people of all ages who have lung diseases such

as asthma, and people who are active outdoors. Based on

CASAC's scientific findings, EPA determined that implementing

the 2015 ozone NAAQS would help prevent a range of harmful

health effects each year, including 320 to 660 premature

deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in children; 160,000 days when

kids miss school; 28,000 missed work days; 630 asthma-related

emergency room visits; and 340 cases of acute bronchitis in

children. EPA has identified additional serious health

threats from ozone including cardiovascular disease (e.g.,

heart attacks, strokes, heart disease, congestive heart

failure); potential harm to the central nervous system; and

potential reproductive and developmental harm. The health

benefits from meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS exceed the costs

of controls by 2 to 4 times.

Like many other states, New York strongly supported EPA's

strengthening of the ozone NAAQS in 2015. This support comes

even though New York faces a substantial burden of achieving

ozone attainment in the New York City metropolitan area.

This-burden, however, is outweighed by the need to address

the serious public health impacts. In New York City,

approximately 1 in 10 emergency room visits for asthma are

attributable to ozone pollution. Rather than seek to delay

its ozone attainment efforts, New York strives to bring the

New York City metropolitan area into attainment as

expeditiously as possible, in order to provide its residents

with cleaner and more healthful air to breathe.

Delaying public health benefits of the 2015 ozone NAAQS

The proposed legislation would harm public health by

delaying the implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (and its

corresponding health benefits) for eight years and further

postponing any future standard for several years beyond when

they are necessary. Current law requires EPA to designate

states under the 2015 ozone NAAQS according to their

monitored air quality by October 2017, and states not meeting

the standards would have a number of years to reach

compliance proportional to the severity of their ozone

problems. However, this legislation would defer action so

that designations would not be made until October 2025, thus

postponing even the beginning of planning efforts until after

attainment would otherwise have been achieved under the

current structure of the Act. For New Yorkers and other

Americans, this would result in a substantial delay in their

ability to breathe clean and healthful air.

Even worse, this proposed bill compounds this public health

harm by allowing the construction of new power plants and

factories without considering their impact on a region's

ability to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Under current

law, such new and modified facilities located in areas

designated nonattainment are subject to a control technology

review under the Clean Air Act's nonattainment new source

review program, which requires a demonstration of control

technology that would consider the ``lowest achievable

emission rate,'' resulting in the most stringent emission

limit for a certain source class. This bill would eliminate

these new source reviews, which are critical for advancing a

nonattainment area toward NAAQS compliance.

Together, these aspects of the legislation will have even

worse additional adverse impacts on states like New York that

are victimized by upwind air pollution. First, this

legislation will impair New York's relief from ozone

transport from upwind locations. EPA modeling indicates that

between 75% and 94% of the ozone in the New York City

metropolitan area comes from sources outside of New York.

Although New York will continue actions to reduce emission of

ozone precursors, it cannot achieve healthful ozone levels

without a substantial reduction in emissions from states

located upwind, which are responsible for most of New York's

ozone levels. Many of these states encompass areas that are

currently monitoring as nonattainment, and these areas would

have to achieve emission reductions under current law if

designated nonattainment. Postponing a nonattainment

designation for the New York City metropolitan area will have

the unacceptable effect of postponing the ``good neighbor''

obligation of upwind areas to reduce their significant

contribution to New York's nonattainment until sometime after

the nonattainment designation.

Moreover, postponing compliance with nonattainment New

Source Review in areas that would otherwise be designated as

nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS establishes an inequitable

outcome for New York and other states that have already been

designated nonattainment. Under this proposed bill, new

industrial facilities in areas currently designated

nonattainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS or in the Ozone

Transport Region--including all of New York--will have to

comply with nonattainment NSR requirements, yet facilities

located in regions with comparable or worse air quality and

much higher emissions will not have to do so for a decade or

more. As such, states that would otherwise be designated

nonattainment would gain an unfair advantage in attracting

business development under this bill.

Delaying public health benefits from reducing other criteria pollutants

Aside from ozone, provisions of this proposed bill would

affect future NAAQS reviews for all criteria pollutants, thus

compounding negative public health impacts. For example, the

bill would irresponsibly extend the NAAQS review time from

five years to ten for all criteria pollutants. Retaining the

five-year review schedule ensures that the Administrator

reviews the relevant state of the science while it is timely

and germane. Health science moves quickly; by the time one

NAAQS revision is reaching completion, other pertinent

clinical studies are being published.

This proposed bill weakens public health protection by

making cost and technological feasibility larger factors in

the establishment and implementation of NAAQS. The Supreme

Court has already upheld the notion that the consideration of

costs has no place in the setting of a NAAQS (Whitman v.

American Trucking Associations, Inc., 2001). Instead,

questions of technological and economic feasibility are

considered at the stage of implementing the NAAQS. For

example, the Act's nonattainment area classifications

recognize that areas with more difficult ozone pollution

problems require more time to comply. Unfortunately, Section

3(b) of the proposed bill would change the long-standing

practice of how an Administrator determines the NAAQS by

allowing him or her to analyze, as a secondary consideration,

the likely technological feasibility of a revised NAAQS.

Section 3(c) would expand CASAC's role to providing advice to

the Administrator on adverse economic effects (among others)

prior to the setting of the NAAQS. Taken together, these

proposed revisions would have the effect that NAAQS would no

longer be set at levels that are protective of public health

and welfare.

Finally, the proposed bill unnecessarily redefines ordinary

expected conditions as ``exceptional events'' that need not

be considered by a state in demonstrating attainment. The

intent of the ``extraordinary event'' exception is to allow a

state to discount NAAQS exceedances that result from one-

time, unpredictable, and uncontrollable events such as

wildfires. The proposal, however, would allow commonplace

conditions such as stagnant air masses and ``meteorological

event[s] involving high temperatures or lack of

precipitation'' to be considered exceptional. In their ozone

planning, states should anticipate these conditions, which

are expected to occur each year and promote the formation of

ozone when public health is at the greatest risk.

We also disagree with the proposal to allow sources to

avoid nonattainment new source review until release of the

implementation guidance. EPA's delay in issuing guidance

should not be an excuse to allow new sources in nonattainment

areas to contribute to further air quality degradation. In

addition, the bill's reduction of the time allotted for

states to formulate and submit attainment plans from the

current three years to one year reflects a misunderstanding

of the laborious process for developing these plans.

Conclusion

The Clean Air Act is a bipartisan success story. Citizens

across the country have benefited from the Act's clean air

requirements over the last few decades. People can breathe

easier due to the clean air standards that have resulted from

rigorous reviews that are guided by the latest scientific

evidence. Passage of this proposed bill would deprive the

American people of those benefits, worsen air quality and

harm public health substantially.

Sincerely,

Basil Seggos.

Mr. Chairman, the third document I include in the Record is a letter signed by 15 medical and public health organizations, again, opposing the bill.

July 17, 2017.

Dear Representative: Clean air is fundamental for good

health, and the Clean Air Act promises all Americans air that

is safe to breathe. The undersigned public health and medical

organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 806, the so-called

``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017.'' A more

fitting name for this legislation would be the ``Smoggy Skies

Act,'' as it delays lifesaving standards to reduce ozone

pollution, or smog, and permanently weakens the Clean Air

Act.

Clear, up-to-date, scientific evidence documented the need

for greater protection from ozone pollution, and drove the

stronger limit on ozone that the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) finalized in 2015. To meet the

updated standard, the states have clear authority and plenty

of time to plan and then work to reduce pollution under the

Clean Air Act's long-established, balanced implementation

timeline. Despite those facts, the Smoggy Skies Act imposes

additional delays and sweeping changes that will threaten

health, particularly the health of children, seniors and

people with chronic disease.

The Smoggy Skies Act also reaches far beyond implementation

of the current ozone standards. It permanently weakens the

Clean Air Act and future air pollution health standards for

all criteria pollutants. Specifically, the Smoggy Skies Act

weakens implementation and enforcement of all lifesaving air

pollution health standards, including those for carbon

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter,

and sulfur dioxide. It would also permanently undermine the

Clean Air Act as a public health law.

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA review the science on

the health impacts of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen

dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide air

pollutants every five years and update these national ambient

air quality standards according to the current science. The

Smoggy Skies Act would lengthen the review period of the air

pollution health standards from once every five years to once

every ten years for all criteria pollutants. As the science

continues to evolve, the public deserves that their

protections be based on the most up-to-date science,

certainly not a schedule that is twice as long as they

currently have under the law. The work that EPA and states do

to clean up air pollution should be based on the best and

most current science.

Emerging research adds crucial information to our

understanding of the impacts that air pollution has on human

health, and EPA should not have to wait a decade to

incorporate it. For example, on March 29, 2016, a newly

published study, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm

Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic

Costs showed new information linking particulate air

pollution to nearly 16,000 preterm births per year. Under the

Smoggy Skies Act, EPA would have to wait as much as a decade

to consider such new evidence when setting standards. Ten

years is far too long to wait to protect public health from

levels of pollution that the science shows are dangerous or

for EPA to consider new information.

In the 2015 review of the ozone standard, EPA examined an

extensive body of scientific evidence demonstrating that

ozone inflames the lungs, causing asthma attacks and

resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and

premature deaths. A growing body of research indicates that

ozone may also lead to central nervous system harm and may

harm developing fetuses. In response to the evidence, EPA

updated the ozone standards. While many of our organizations

called for a more protective level, there is no doubt that

the updated, 70 parts per billion standard provides greater

health protections compared to the previous standard.

The Smoggy Skies Act would delay implementation of these

more protective air pollution standards for at least eight

years. This means eight years of illnesses and premature

deaths that could have been avoided. Parents will not be told

the truth about pollution in their community and states and

EPA will not work to curb pollution to meet the new

standards. The public has a fundamental right to know when

pollution in the air they breathe or the water they drink

threatens health, and Congress must not add eight years of

delay to health protections and cleanup.

Furthermore, the American public overwhelmingly supports

upholding these more protective limits on ozone. A 2017 poll

found that by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe Congress

should leave EPA's updated standards in place, showing clear

public opposition to the Smoggy Skies Act.

The Smoggy Skies Act would also permanently weaken

implementation of the 2015 and future ozone standards. The

Act would delay implementation to a date when the evidence

shows that most states would meet the standard with cleanup

measures already in place. It would also reduce requirements

for areas with the most dangerous levels of ozone. Areas

classified as being in ``extreme nonattainment'' of the

standard would no longer need to write plans that include

additional contingency measures if their initial plans fail

to provide the expected pollution reductions. The Clean Air

Act prioritizes reducing air pollution to protect the

public's health, but the Smoggy Skies Act opens a new

opportunity for communities to avoid cleaning up,

irrespective of the health impacts.

Further, the bill would greatly expand the definition of an

exceptional event. Under the Clean Air Act, communities can

demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event, such as a

wildfire, should not ``count'' in determining whether their

air quality meets the national standards. This bill would

recklessly expand the definition of exceptional events to

include high pollution days when the air is simply stagnant--

the precise air pollution episodes the Clean Air Act was

designed to combat--and declare those bad air days as

``exceptional.'' Changing the accounting rules will undermine

health protection and avoid pollution cleanup.

Additionally, the bill would permanently weaken the Clean

Air Act. The Clean Air Act is one of our nation's premier

public health laws because it puts health first. The Act has

a two-step process: first, EPA considers scientific evidence

to decide how much air pollution is safe to breathe and sets

the standard that is requisite to protect public health with

an adequate margin of safety. Then, states work with EPA to

develop a plan to clean up air pollution to meet the

standard. Cost and feasibility are fully considered in the

second phase during implementation of the standard.

This bill states that if EPA finds that ``a range of

levels'' of an air pollutant protect public health with an

adequate margin of safety, then EPA may consider

technological feasibility in choosing a limit within that

range. Further, the bill would interject implementation

considerations, including projections of adverse economic and

energy effects, into the standard setting process. These

changes will permanently weaken the core health-based premise

of the Clean Air Act--protecting the public from known health

effects of air pollution with a margin of safety.

These changes would reverse the intention of the Clean Air

Act explicitly included by its bipartisan authors in

Congress: that basing the standard on the protection of

public health would push technology to develop new tools and

techniques to reduce emissions. They understood that pushing

the cleanup technology to meet the urgent need to protect

health would help to expand job development and growth. They

were correct, as the emission control industry today has

helped the nation meet stronger standards in creative, cost-

effective ways.

The text also explicitly states that the Smoggy Skies Act

does not authorize any additional funds to be appropriated to

EPA for its work carrying out the bill's provisions. Forcing

EPA to perform the additional work of implementing this bill

with no additional resources could put the agency's current,

lifesaving work at further risk.

Finally, an amendment adopted in committee would eliminate

key enforcement provisions under the Clean Air Act. As

amended, the bill could perpetuate poor air quality in

communities with the highest pollution levels indefinitely.

The provision waives the obligation for states with areas

heavily polluted by ozone or particulate matter to write

effective plans to attain the health standards. Currently, if

an area with unhealthy air fails to write an adequate plan to

meet air pollution standards, EPA can impose sanctions.

Because that enforcement provision exists, EPA has almost

never needed to use it--states wrote effective plans. As

amended, the Smoggy Skies Act would bar EPA from using this

key enforcement tool for especially polluted areas,

essentially eliminating the obligation for states to write a

meaningful pollution cleanup plan that can demonstrate

meeting the health standards.

The Smoggy Skies Act is a sweeping attack on lifesaving

standards that protect public health from air pollution. This

bill is an extreme attempt to undermine our nation's proven

clean air health protections. Not only does it delay the

long-overdue updated ozone standards and weaken their

implementation and enforcement, it also permanently weakens

the health protections against many dangerous air pollutants

and the scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards.

Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote

NO on the Smoggy Skies Act.

Sincerely,

Allergy & Asthma Network

Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Lung Association

American Public Health Association

American Thoracic Society

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America

Center for Climate Change and Health

Children's Environmental Health Network

Health Care Without Harm

National Association of County & City Health Officials

National Environmental Health Association

National Medical Association

Physicians for Social Responsibility

Trust for America's Health.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I include a letter signed by 121 environmental and other groups opposing the bill.

March 21, 2017.

Dear Senator/Representative, on behalf of our millions of

members, the undersigned 121 organizations urge you to oppose

the ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act'' (H.R. 806, S.

263). The innocuous-sounding name is misleading: this

legislation would actually systematically weaken the Clean

Air Act without a single improvement, undermine Americans'

46-year right to healthy air based on medical science, and

delay life-saving health standards already years overdue.

This bill's vision of ``Ozone Standards Implementation''

eliminates health benefits and the right to truly safe air

that Americans enjoy under today's law. First, the

legislation would delay for ten years the right to safer air

quality, and even the simple right to know if the air is safe

to breathe. Corporations applying for air pollution permits

would be free to ignore new ground-level ozone (aka smog)

health standards during these additional ten years. For the

first time the largest sources of air pollution would be

allowed to exceed health standards. The bill would also

outright excuse the parts of the country suffering the worst

smog pollution from having backup plans if they do not reduce

pollution. The most polluted parts of the country should not

stop doing everything they can to protect their citizens'

health and environment by cleaning up smog pollution.

This bill is not content to merely weaken and delay

reductions in smog pollution. It also strikes at our core

right to clean air based on health and medical science. The

medically-based health standards that the law has been

founded on for 46 years instead could become a political

football weakened by polluter compliance costs. This could

well result in communities being exposed to unhealthy levels

of smog and soot and sulfur dioxide and even toxic lead

pollution. The bill would also double the law's five-year

review periods for recognizing the latest science and

updating health standards, which are already frequently years

late; this means in practice that unhealthy air would persist

for longer than ten years.

The legislation also weakens implementation of current

clean air health standards. The bill expands exemptions for

``exceptional events'' that are not counted towards

compliance with health standards for air quality, even when

air pollution levels are unsafe. This will mean more unsafe

air more often, with no responsibility to clean it up.

Requirements meant to ensure progress toward reducing smog

and soot pollution would shift from focusing on public health

and achievability to economic costs. Despite the bland name

``Ozone Standards Implementation Act,'' this bill represents

an extreme attack on the most fundamental safeguards and

rights in the Clean Air Act.

Since 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act has been organized

around one governing principle--that the EPA must set health

standards based on medical science for dangerous air

pollution, including smog, soot and lead, that protect all

Americans, with ``an adequate margin of safety'' for

vulnerable populations like children, the elderly and

asthmatics. This legislation eviscerates that principle and

protection. We urge you to oppose H.R. 806 and S. 263, to

protect our families and Americans' rights to clean air.

Sincerely,

350KC; 350 Loudoun; Alaska Community Action on Toxics;

Alton Area Cluster UCM (United Congregations of Metro-East);

Brentwood House; California Latino Business Institute; Center

for Biological Diversity; Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ)

Coalition; Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility;

Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Citizens for Clean Air; Clean Air Watch; Clean Water

Action; Cleveland Environmental Action Network; Climate

Action Alliance of the Valley; Connecticut League of

Conservation Voters; Conservation Voters for Idaho;

Conservation Voters of South Carolina; Dakota Resource

Council; Earth Day Network; Earthjustice; Earthworks;

Environment Iowa; Environment America.

Environment Arizona; Environment California; Environment

Colorado; Environment Connecticut; Environment Florida;

Environment Georgia; Environment Illinois; Environment Maine;

Environment Maryland; Environment Massachusetts; Environment

Michigan; Environment Minnesota; Environment Missouri;

Environment Montana; Environment Nevada; Environment New

Hampshire; Environment New Jersey; Environment New Mexico;

Environment North Carolina.

Environment Ohio; Environment Oregon; Environment Rhode

Island; Environment Texas; Environment Virginia; Environment

Washington; Environmental Defense Action Fund; Environmental

Entrepreneurs (E2); Environmental Law & Policy Center;

Ethical Society of St. Louis; Faith Alliance for Climate

Solutions; Florida Conservation Voters; Fort Collins

Sustainability Group; Gasp; GreenLatinos.

Health Care Without Harm; Iowa Interfaith Power & Light;

Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society; KyotoUSA;

Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO); Latino Donor

Collaborative; League of Conservation Voters; League of Women

Voters; Maine Conservation Voters; Maryland League of

Conservation Voters; Michigan League of Conservation Voters;

Moms Clean Air Force; Montana Conservation Voters Education

Fund.

Montana Environmental Information Center; National Parks

Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council;

NC League of Conservation Voters; Nevada Conservation League;

New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New York League of

Conservation Voters; Northern Plains Resource Council; OEC

Action Fund; Ohio Organizing Collaborative, Communities

United for Responsible Energy; Oregon League of Conservation

Voters; Partnership for Policy Integrity; PennEnvironment.

People Demanding Action, Tucson Chapter; Physicians for

Social Responsibility; Physicians for Social Responsibility,

Maine Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los

Angeles Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility,

Arizona Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF Bay

Area Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tennessee

Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Wisconsin

Chapter; Powder River Basin Resource Council; Public Citizen;

Public Citizen's Texas Office; RVA Interfaith Climate Justice

Team; Safe Climate Campaign; San Juan Citizens Alliance;

Sierra Club.

Southern Environmental Law Center; Texas Campaign for the

Environment; Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services;

Texas League of Conservation Voters; The Environmental

Justice Center at Chestnut Hills United Church; Trust for

America's Health; Union of Concerned Scientists; Utah

Physicians for a Healthy Environment; Valley Watch; Virginia

Organizing; Virginia Interfaith Power & Light; Voces Verdes;

Voices for Progress; Washington Conservation Voters; WE ACT

for Environmental Justice; Western Colorado Congress; Western

Organization of Resource Councils; Wisconsin Environmental

Health Network; Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters;

Wisconsin Environment; Wyoming Outdoor Council.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Chair, two points on the review and the standards. Certainly not every review would require a change in standards, and I think that needs to be made clear here. When we talk about the difficulty of having to respond or achieve the standards that have been established and then they go stronger, well, on your way to 70 parts per billion, you are going to be moving through 75 parts per billion as you reduce those particulates that get emitted into our air. It is only logical that you could move along and continue to improve those standards.

This is about maintaining a quality of life, enhancing a quality of life, cutting into, for public health policy purposes, the devastating impacts of air pollutants and their relation to our public health.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

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

Mr. Chair, I want to remind my colleagues, having just heard from a Californian, that California has nearly 3 million residents with asthma, including 650,000 children. Why on Earth would we want to put them at further risk by going backward? I suggest that we keep that in mind as we vote on this measure.

I heard the comment made about unachievable or unrealistic standards. Well, how is it that we have been making progress through the years? We have been growing jobs, and we have been cleaning the air. How is it that that was deemed unrealistic and unachievable?

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the pioneer spirit of this great country. I believe in her intellect. I believe in the passion to do the right thing. And I think that will continue to motivate us as we listen to scientists who tell us about the standards that we ought to achieve.

On our way to 75 parts per billion, we know that it is continued progress if we achieve 70; and if we listen to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, they will tell us that the air, for safety, with the safety factor, we should be closer to 60. So we have much more room for progress, and we have the technological wizardry to make that happen. Our children and generations unborn are counting on us.

As has been stated many times over today, this is a move in a backward direction. We are concerned on this side of the aisle about H.R. 806. We need to know that the standards that are out there are achievable, that those standards drive technological improvement.

We can grow the economy and clean the air. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we have proven that they are inclusive.

Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this effort of opposition to H.R. 806. It is, as many have called it, an effort that will continue to hold back progress.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes subsection (b) of section 3, which would allow the EPA to consider technological feasibility when determining what level of pollution is safe.

Health-based standards are the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act-- health-based. The EPA sets NAAQS at levels sufficient to protect the public health, essentially, the level of ambient air pollution that is safe to breathe.

While costs are not considered in establishing these standards, costs can be--and are considered--in developing plans to achieve the necessary pollution reductions to meet the standards.

Unfortunately, H.R. 806, as currently drafted, would change the longstanding criteria for establishing an air quality standard from one that is based solely on protecting public health to one that includes a consideration of the technological feasibility. This issue has been long debated and settled by Congress.

Since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, including the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress has excluded technological feasibility considerations from standard setting to ensure that public health--and public health alone--would determine the standards for air quality.

In 1970, on the passage of the Clean Air Act, Senator Ed Muskie from Maine said: ``The first responsibility of Congress is not the making of technological or economic judgments--or even to be limited by what is or appears to be technologically or economically infeasible. Our responsibility is to establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries will be asked to do what seems to be impossible at present time. But if health is to be protected, these challenges must be met.''

For approaching five decades, that has been the guiding tenet of the Clean Air Act: what is in the betterment of public health.

Guided by this principle, our Nation has experienced a 70 percent reduction in key air pollutants while tripling the size of the economy.

I believe that a great deal of this success can be credited to American innovation. Despite assertions that achieving clean air was not feasible, American ingenuity has consistently risen

to the challenge and made our country the leader in both clean air and clean air technology.

Unquestionably, these standards have driven innovation, creating a thriving domestic pollution control industry.

So I ask my colleagues who are in favor of this measure: What is it about a can-do attitude that you don't get? Why is it that you have a lack of trust in the power of American ingenuity?

Had these standards not been ambitious and focused solely on public health, we may still be relying upon the technology from the 1970s and breathing the poor air quality from that era along with it.

Available technologies cannot and should not determine what we can have in terms of clean air. Let's have the scientific and medical experts guide us, and I have confidence that our engineers and innovators will find that way. The history of those protections that we enjoy has been to set ambitious, but achievable, goals. We have achieved those goals, and we have much cleaner air to show for it. Let's not roll back this process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think the insertion of discretion of the Administrator at the EPA as to the technological and economical availability, achievable qualities being inserted into this bill tells me--my interpretation is that the Administrator may not--the Administrator may not, may not--side with the residents--with the people of this country and their right to breathe clean air.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, The Senate is introducing yet another version of TrumpCare today. I rise to express my grave concern with the most harmful aspects of this mean and merciless bill.

TrumpCare still includes billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, a critical source of healthcare for 1.75 million of America's veterans, two-thirds of U.S. nursing home residents, and one in five Americans. The latest Senate TrumpCare bill cuts Medicaid by as much as a third.

Every version of TrumpCare we have seen would result in more than 20 million fewer Americans covered over the next 10 years.

There is still no sign of a TrumpCare bill that would not break President's Trump's healthcare promises to the American people. The President promised ``insurance for everybody.'' He said: ``Everybody's going to be taken care of.''

Every version of TrumpCare would break that promise, big league. The President promised that Medicaid would not be cut under his healthcare plan. No version of TrumpCare has been proposed that even comes close to keeping that promise.

President Trump promised the American people a healthcare plan that would ``lower premiums'' with ``much lower deductibles.''

It is time for Americans to get a real plan and not be left with broken promises.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on World Refugee Day, to share some facts on the United States Refugee Resettlement Program.

America's Refugee Resettlement Program is a small but powerful humanitarian expression of American values and founding principles. And just as important, it makes us safer.

Refugees go through vetting that is already extreme. If there is any doubt about a refugee's identity, he or she is not admitted. The process is so rigorous, there hasn't been a single fatal terrorist attack carried out by a refugee in the United States since the Refugee Act became law in 1980.

Americans across our great country support resettlement. America's faith communities are leading the call for America to stand by her principles and shelter the fleeing victims of our enemies, including the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany in my own 20th District of New York. That is because it speaks directly to American values of strength, inclusiveness, and compassion.

New Yorkers have played a vital role in the resettlement program, and refugees are positively contributing to communities across New York State and beyond. The United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants' Albany field office has helped resettle refugees from Afghanistan, from Burma, Iraq, Ukraine, and the Congo, just to name a few. Some of these refugees are single mothers seeking a better life for themselves and their children; others are families fleeing war and persecution.

We have the strength, the means, and the capacity to welcome these refugees with open arms. Let us stand with these huddled masses and remain a beacon of freedom around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Wedding Anniversary of James and Madeline Petraske of Niskayuna, New York.

James and Madeline met when James--who was dating a friend of Madeline's--offered her a ride home from her job at the National Baseball Manufacturing Company in Schenectady, New York.

The couple married two years later on Flag Day, June 14, 1942.

In 1944, as World War II raged on around the world, James and Madeline answered the call to serve. James left his job at General Electric to serve our country overseas. Madeline joined the war effort here at home as a nurse aid for the Red Cross.

The two wrote to each other regularly until James returned home on June 25, 1946. James returned to his job at General Electric where he worked until he retired as a Manager of Shop Operations in 1961.

In addition to their service to our country, James and Madeline volunteered with Meals On Wheels throughout their lives, stopping only after Madeline and James had turned 89 and 90, respectively. Madeline, at the age of 97, continues to volunteer for the Disabled American Veterans.

James and Madeline are the proud parents of three children, five grandchildren, eleven great grandchildren and one great great grandchild.

Each night before they go to sleep, James tells Madeline she is the best thing that ever happened to him.

Congratulations to James and Madeline on their 75th Wedding Anniversary. We thank them for their lifetimes of service to their community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep disappointment that President Trump intends to pull the United States out of the historic Paris climate agreement. This agreement is a powerful symbol of America's strength and global leadership. It promised a bright future for our Nation and the world powered by clean energy.

America was poised to lead that clean energy revolution. Instead, the world is now making plans to move ahead without us. Jobs will be created without us. New industries will be born and new innovative technologies manufactured without us. If we stick with this President's decision, America will be on the outside looking in.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am still in, and so are more

than 1,000 of America's most forward-thinking cities, States, universities, and businesses, including the cities of Albany, Schenectady, and Saratoga Springs, Union and Skidmore Colleges, and SUNY Albany. So are millions of our fellow Americans and communities in every single congressional district across our great Nation. Together, we will embrace the climate economy, even if our President does not.

President Trump's decision is a scar on America's image, but the American people will continue to demand leadership on reducing carbon pollution. Our children and our grandchildren are counting on us. Let's not fail them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call urgent attention to America's drinking water infrastructure. Every day, more than 700 water mains break in cities, towns, and villages across our great country. Every day, 7 billion gallons of clean drinking water are lost due to leaks and breaks in our water infrastructure. That is treated water and our tax dollars down the drain.

With as many as 10 million lead service lines in use today and dozens of new unregulated contaminants, the threat to public health goes far beyond Flint, Michigan, and Hoosick Falls, New York. Our Federal Government has a duty to protect the people of this country. We must act decisively to address this growing challenge.

We maintain roads and bridges and ports and railways and so much more, but our investment in our water systems has not kept up, and now these systems are failing. Many State and local governments can't keep up. They

need our help. This job needs to get done now, this year, in this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to join me in supporting H.R. 1071, the AQUA Act. Let's respond to these great Nation's drinking water challenges with strength, compassion, and passion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to call our President's attention to the working families both in New York's capital region and across our great country who are hurting from his broken promises during his first 100 days in office.

President Trump promised during the campaign that our working families would never be forgotten again. He has forgotten to keep that promise. This President promised to get lobbyists and special interests out of our government. Then he filled his Cabinet with former lobbyists, Wall Street and oil company executives, and other billionaires.

Now reports are coming out that numerous members of his administration were exempted from his widely publicized 5-year lobbying ban; therefore, it is no surprise that his policies, again and again, put corporate interests ahead of America's middle class and working families.

President Trump promised to punish companies that outsourced American jobs. Instead, he has continued to award lucrative government contracts to these outsourcing companies, rewarding them for bad behavior and doing nothing to hold other bad actors accountable.

As a candidate, Donald Trump called NAFTA the worst trade deal ever approved in our country. He promised to hold China accountable for its bad behavior on trade. Mexico and Canada called his bluff this week on NAFTA. Instead of accountability, President Trump has offered China sweetheart trade benefits to get them to keep promises they had already made in dealing with North Korea.

We know the difference between alternative facts and real results. We all do.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 26th, I was unavoidably detained and I missed roll call votes 224 and 225.

Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on roll call vote 224.

Had I been present, I would have voted NO on roll call vote 225.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding. Thank you, Representative Langevin, for leading us in this hour, and also for your great leadership on behalf of the arts and humanities.

I am very pleased to join my colleagues in taking this time to speak about the critical importance of the National Endowment for the Arts, NEA, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH.

Any great civil society will grow even stronger by embracing the arts and humanities, and certainly America, when she embraces the arts and the humanities, grows to the greatest potential; so the greatness of America is reflected by that interest and that investment.

At a time when some are arguing that we must cut our way to success, I would remind them that investments in the arts and in humanities are investments in our workforce and in our economy. I fully support funding for these programs.

The National Endowment for the Arts provides a foundation for America's artistic excellence, her creativity, and innovation that benefits individuals, communities, and our industries.

As NEA Chair Jane Chu once said: ``Although many may not realize it, the arts actively intersect with areas such as the economy, human development, and community vitality.''

The NEA, as a strong sponsor of the arts and artists, is an integral source of strength at these intersections, challenging students to turn imaginative ideas into brilliant solutions for generations to come.

Art in our communities, and especially in our schools, is indeed vital. It is one of the most important ways that we celebrate our unique regional heritage and expand our own horizons of creativity and innovation.

In the capital region of New York, the area that I am so proud to represent, we value the arts. So much of our artistic achievement would not be possible without the National Endowment for the Arts.

For many years, the Albany Symphony Orchestra has received NEA grants in support of the American Music Festival.

The Arts Center of the Capital Region has received NEA grants for exhibitions, workshops, and master classes.

Yaddo has been the recipient of many NEA grants to support residencies for collaborative teams.

Fence magazine uses NEA grants for publication of books of poetry and podcasts.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was just awarded an NEA grant for residencies to create works investigating the intersection of art, media, technology, and, yes, science.

Without the NEA, these programs would not be there to enrich our communities and our lives.

National Endowment for the Humanities awards also support research and innovation, strengthen critical thinking and writing skills, as well as strengthen humanities education in all institutions of learning.

Supporting the growth of the humanities in our communities is just as essential. The National Endowment for the Humanities has contributed in many ways to the capital region, which has a very rich history and heritage worthy of preservation, promotion, and celebration.

Many of our institutes of higher education have benefited from these grants, including RPI, Skidmore, Union College, and SUNY Albany, to name a few.

Some of the projects that have been funded by NEH include the Underground Railroad History Project of the Capital Region, which explores the complex relationship between the Underground Railroad, the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction in our region, as well as the influence of these events on our contemporary society.

Investments in the humanities also drive us to be better citizens. NEH has supported the League of Women Voters of New York State Education Foundation, which is working toward the celebration of women's right to vote and the 100th anniversary of the League of Women Voters in New York State to celebrate the upcoming events commemorating the women's suffrage centennial.

Grant recipients include the Girl Scouts, the Troy Boys and Girls Club, libraries, museums, high schools, and elementary schools. Our history reminds us of the pride that comes with developing community and neighborhood, investments that those who came before us made in growing families, developing households, building neighborhoods in powerful and meaningful ways.

This conversation is also closely linked to two other important fields that are intertwined with the arts and humanities. First, I am a longtime supporter of America's heritage areas, special places that have played important roles in shaping our Nation. They tell the stories of people and communities, the pioneer spirit of which laid the foundations of our society.

Heritage areas provide enormous economic benefits, and I greatly appreciate the work that the Erie Canalway and Hudson Valley heritage areas have done for upstate New York. As the co-chair of the Congressional National Heritage Area Caucus, I continue to be impressed by how the entire National Heritage Areas program operates on a very small budget. These cost-effective programs create jobs and grow our local economies.

In fact, each Federal dollar invested in this program leverages more than $5 in non-Federal funds. That is exactly the kind of smart investing we need to see more of.

By the way, thank you to the 77 Members who joined me in supporting funding for heritage areas.

I am also supporting funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services because museums are a vital part of our communities and educational infrastructure. These museums collectively employ 400,000 Americans and have an impact of $20 billion in their communities.

During my time in Congress, I have been a steadfast advocate for our Nation's museums, and I have urged my colleagues to robustly fund the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the primary agency that supports our Nation's 33,000 museums. It is highly accountable, and its great competitive, peer-reviewed grants programs serve all States.

This year, we had 166 Members signing on to that letter. So it is very obvious, NEH, NEA, IMLS, and National Heritage Areas are fundamental investments in our communities. They make life richer, more meaningful; they inspire us; they challenge us. They need to be funded. Let's move forward with the critical funding they require and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate New York State Yellow Ribbon Day.

On April 9th, the State of New York will observe Yellow Ribbon Day to honor current and former members of the United States Armed Forces. Yellow Ribbon Day has occurred on April 9th each year since 2006 following unanimous support for resolutions by the New York State Legislature, and Proclamations by New York's governors.

New York State Yellow Ribbon Day, which was originally held at the Saratoga-Wilton Elks, and now takes place at the Halfmoon Town Hall, truly represents the spirit of the New York's 20th Congressional District and its commitment to supporting and recognizing our service men and women.

Yellow Ribbon Day is championed each year by Carol Hotaling, a resident of New York's 20th Congressional District, who began making yellow ribbons to donate to the family members of troops deployed during Operation Desert Storm. Ms. Hotaling stands as a beacon of goodwill and an outstanding member of our community by virtue of her dedication to creating a meaningful occasion to honor our troops.

Ms. Hotaling chose the date of April 9 in honor of Matt Maupin, a U.S. Army Staff Sergeant who was captured while serving in Iraq on that date in 2004. Staff Sergeant Maupin was the first U.S. military service member who went Missing-In-Action during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

It is an honor and privilege to recognize our troops on this solemn occasion, and always, for their example of honor, sacrifice, strength, sense of duty, and leadership. On behalf of New York's 20th Congressional District, I offer my heartfelt gratitude for their service in defense of our freedom, security, and way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1430, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act.

I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered. This bill pretends to improve scientific integrity and transparency while, in reality, they would stop the EPA from doing its critical job, its critical mission of protecting the American people.

Many credible organizations have opposed the HONEST Act, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, the League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Action Fund.

Two others that I include in the Record, the copies that I hold in my hand, in opposition, have been received from the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, and the other from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative.

Consortium for

Ocean Leadership,

Washington, DC, March 27, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Consortium for Ocean

Leadership, which represents our nation's leading ocean

research and technology institutions (from academia,

industry, and aquaria), I am writing to express concern

regarding the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment

(HONEST) Act of 2017 (H.R. 1430). Sound science must underpin

the rulemaking process at all our nation's federal agencies,

the Environmental Protection Agency included. I am concerned

about the practical implications of this bill and what it

means, not only for the rulemaking process, but for the

health, security, and prosperity of our nation and its

citizens. While I ardently support efforts to ensure the

continued use of sound science, I urge you and your

colleagues to consider unintended consequences of this bill

before bringing it to the House floor.

While reproducibility is a fundamental assumption of

science, that should not be conflated with the idea that all

non-reproducible science is incorrect. There are many cases

where reproducibility is simply not possible, but that does

not negate the importance of the conclusions that have been

reached. In 1994, the comet Shoemaker-Levy collided with our

celestial neighbor Jupiter, providing a first-hand look at

cosmic collisions and insight on both the comet and the

planet. The devastating Deepwater Horizon disaster in the

Gulf of Mexico has provided untold insights into everything

ranging from ecosystem responses to oil to impacts on

communities' physical and mental health. Because studies

stemming from these one-time incidents are not reproducible,

it does not mean that their methodology and results are

flawed. Additionally, longitudinal studies, especially in the

public health arena, are often too large and take so much

time (e.g., a study following a cohort for multiple decades)

that they could not realistically be reproduced but are

instead replicated through statistical modeling. Under the

current language of the HONEST Act, similar studies within

EPA's purview would be excluded from the agency's use,

potentially keeping the agency from making a proposal or

disseminating information and limiting the amount of good

science from which the EPA can makes decisions.

The bill also requires scientific and technical information

used to make federal regulations be posted online. While the

language specifies that personally identifiable information

used in these studies be redacted (unlike in the bill's

predecessor, the Secret Science Reform Act), the HONEST Act

goes on to state that personal information could be disclosed

to anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement with the

administrator. If federal regulations are made that impact a

specific industry, the same industry could access the

personal records of those who participated in the study.

Knowing that their personal information could be made

accessible to anyone would likely reduce the number of

willing participants in such a study, again limiting the best

science available to the agency.

Additionally, redacting information from documents is a

costly and time-consuming process that often requires the

work of an entire office. The EPA's limited resources, rather

than being spent fulfilling its mission ``to protect human

health and the environment'' would instead be spent

redacting, potentially hundreds of thousands of documents.

Conversely, the bill does not define who would make this

information publicly available online (and make appropriate

redactions) if the EPA were relying on a published, peer-

reviewed study performed by another entity, such as an

academic research institution. This would potentially impose

unexpected costs on the institution.

Rather than improving the quality of science used by the

agency, this bill would instead limit the amount of ``best

available science'' available for decision-making and would

require significant time and manpower. Such an impact would

threaten the health, not only of our nation, but of our

country's citizens who rely on the EPA to protect their well-

being. The unintended consequences from this bill are myriad,

and the ocean science and technology community stands ready

to help you evaluate them before considering this legislation

on the House floor.

Respectfully,

Jonathan W. White, RADM (Ret.), USN,

President and CEO, Consortium for Ocean Leadership.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has recently said that ``the bill effectively prevents the EPA from using the weight of scientific evidence to protect public health and the environment.''

They go on to say ``this doesn't make sense.''

I agree. This doesn't make any sense.

Instead, I hope that, as a Congress, we can turn our attention to truly protecting scientific integrity. We must protect the scientific process from political interference, which is why I recently introduced the Scientific Integrity Act, which will require our United States Federal agencies to adopt or strengthen policies to insulate government-directed research from the influence of political pressure and special interests.

Under the Scientific Integrity Act, Federal agencies that conduct or fund scientific research would be required to develop clear, written scientific integrity policies that can guarantee research is being done and published without undue influence, censorship, or distortion.

Scientific and technological information would be able to flow more easily while protecting privacy, confidentiality, and our national security. Twenty-four separate Federal agencies have developed scientific integrity policies to date. This legislation would also codify and strengthen these policies within a common framework.

Every Democrat on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has supported the Scientific Integrity Act, and I invite all of my colleagues across the aisle to join us in working to truly protect scientific integrity.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the so-called HONEST Act.

Madam Speaker, during yesterday evening's vote series, I was present on the House floor. However, my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 202, due to a technical malfunction. Had I been recorded, I would have voted ``no'' on S.J. Res. 34.