Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and celebrate Barbara Grijalva on her retirement from KOLD News 13, Tucson.

Barbara has been a fixture of our community from her first time on screen in 1983. Born and raised in Tucson, and a graduate of the University of Arizona, Barbara is a unique, homegrown personality. For 34 years, Barbara worked tirelessly to provide Tucson and Southern Arizona with the most relevant and updated news, both local and national, and is considered a living legend by her coworkers and viewers. During her time on KOLD News 13, Barbara was flexible in her reporting, working as both an anchor and a reporter in the field; in times of need, Barbara could always be counted on by her team to get the job done. Above all, Barbara Grijalva is a trusted professional whose reporting is always defined by the facts. In these times, the loss of a journalist of Barbara's caliber is significant.

Her talent, demeanor, and style will be missed coming into our homes and our minds. We thank Barbara for the contributions and impact she has given us, and we wish her well in her next adventure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor the life of Rudy Castro--a Marine Corps veteran, devoted educator, civic leader, and lifelong baseball player and coach.

Rudy was born and raised in Barrio Anita in Tucson, attended Davis Elementary, Roskruge Jr. High and graduated from Tucson High School in 1949. Since his first days playing with friends in Oury Park, Rudy's talent for baseball was clear; even at a young age, Rudy could be found playing with kids five years older than him just to find a challenge, and was so talented that he started playing with the Tucson High School varsity baseball team in 7th grade.

Rudy's remarkable athletic abilities were not just restricted to baseball--in high school, Rudy played football, baseball, and basketball, leading his teams to several championships all while serving on his school's student council and maintaining a high GPA. This earned him the attention of the baseball coach of Palo Verde Junior College who promptly offered him a baseball scholarship.

Rudy initially turned down the offer so that he could find a job and help support his family. Fortunately, when his mother heard about the scholarship, she immediately packed Rudy's bags for him. After just two years of junior college, Rudy joined the Marine Corps during the Korean War and served in the infamous ``E Company'' for the next four years.

In 1951, Rudy and 100 other young servicemen tried out for the Camp Pendleton Baseball team, and Rudy was one of just 20 to make the cut. After touring with his team across the country and winning All-Marine honors as an outstanding shortstop, Rudy went back to school to play baseball at the University of Arizona on another full-ride scholarship. After graduating, Rudy began his career as a teacher, teaching at Safford Junior High, Roskruge K-8, and finally became the baseball coach at Cholla High School.

After returning to school for a dual master's degree, Rudy was named Director of the Extended Day School at Tucson High School, where he spent a decade encouraging students to keep working toward obtaining their diplomas. He was a devoted coach and teacher even outside of school, spending his summers and free time coaching baseball and volunteering as a referee and umpire for high school games. In addition, he is remembered by his former players and students as a person who was always willing to listen to their problems and offer them advice as they became older.

A prominent member of the Tucson political community as well, Rudy served as a Tucson City Councilman for nine years, as well as serving on the Selective Service Board, Pima County Grievance Committee, and as the first chairman of the Pima County Sports Authority. In retirement, Rudy played baseball well into his 70's, earning him membership in the Senior League Baseball Hall of Fame and the Southern Pima County Sports Hall of Fame. As a political leader, education advocate, friend, and father, Rudy made a huge impact on many lives and on the Tucson community at large--his passion for life and love for the people around him will never be forgotten.

He is survived by his wife, Carol; daughter, Linda (Tom) Spencer and son Rudy; daughters, Julie and Celina; sister, Alice Rice; brother, Rick (Helen) Acedo and half-brother, Albert; grandchildren, KC McCall, and Holly and Thomas Bolen as well as many other loving relatives. Rudy Castro's life is part of the unique and special character of Tucson, just as Rudy was a unique and special character himself.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Pima Council on Aging on its 50th anniversary of service to older adults and their families in Congressional District Three.

As one of the nation's oldest Area Agencies on Aging, Pima Council on Aging (PCOA) has advocated on behalf of older adults since the days when 30 percent of Americans aged 60 and older lived in poverty. That number has been reduced by nearly two-thirds over the past five decades, but there is much work still to be done. PCOA's efforts are tireless and they continue to be at the forefront of advocacy and services to older adults in Pima County.

The work done by PCOA and the aging services network is more critical now than ever before. Each day, up to 10,000 baby boomers are turning 65 and over the next twenty years, 75 million baby boomers will reach retirement age. In Pima County, older adults are the fastest growing portion of the population. Continuing to work towards solutions and support systems to combat pressing concerns like the fear of falling and understanding the Medicare system are paramount to PCOA's success and our communal success.

Over the years, I've come to know the organization well. Since the beginning, Marian Lupu was the zealous driving force behind better care and programs for older adults in Pima County, the State of Arizona, nationally,

and even internationally. One such initiative for better care was creating one of the first case management service systems for older adults in the United States in the early 1970s. After her retirement, I've watched PCOA thrive in the Tucson community, being a staple in the community for my constituents and many others across the county. They have continued as the leading force behind services that support older adults in living with dignity and independence in Tucson and throughout Pima County.

Thank you for continuing to be a voice for change in our community. I look forward to working with PCOA in the future to advocate on behalf of older people in southern Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for not only managing the time, but her leadership and great work in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the millions of Americans who will suffer under this oxymoron called TrumpCare. This bill will result in higher costs and less coverage for hardworking Americans, especially the poor and the elderly. The only winners in this bill are the wealthy who are getting their $600 billion tax cut.

Earlier this week, an official with the American College of Physicians put it best when he said:

In 38 years of advocating for doctors and patients, I have

never seen a bill that will do more harm than the AHCA.

This is a powerful statement.

You know, Mr. Speaker, what I can't figure out is what problem this bill is trying to solve. If the Republicans were looking to cover fewer people, make insurance more expensive, and give tax cuts to the rich, then I guess this Republican bill is the answer.

Let's take a quick look at what this bill does or, as my Republican colleagues refer to it, promises kept.

First and foremost, 24 million Americans are going to lose coverage. Let me repeat that, 24 million. That is not only unacceptable, it is cruel.

And even for those lucky enough not to lose coverage, things are not going to be very good.

Under the Republican healthcare scheme, older Americans will be paying five times more. In what world does anyone think that it is a good idea to make health care even more expensive for the elderly? This is one of those crazy but true things about this bill. So this is what the GOP calls promises kept.

Well, let's take a moment to remember what promises were actually made. In an interview with ``60 Minutes'' in 2015, President Trump promised:

Everybody is going to be covered. I am going to take care

of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not,

everybody is going to be taken care of much better than they

are being taken care of now.

Then just 2 days before the election, Trump went to Sioux City, Iowa, and said:

I am going to protect and save your Social Security and

your Medicare. You made a deal a long, long time ago.

So how does this repeal bill stack up with those promises? Premiums will spike 750 percent with far fewer tax credits to help shoulder that burden; 30 million Americans with preexisting conditions would lose the certainty of coverage they have enjoyed under ObamaCare; Medicare will be slashed by $170 billion; Medicaid will be cut 25 percent. That is $880 billion being ripped away from the most vulnerable Americans, resulting in 14 million people losing coverage immediately.

So who wins here with TrumpCare? The rich, who will reap $600 billion in tax cuts at the expense of medical treatment for the most vulnerable and working folks in this country; Big Pharma is a winner who can now look forward to more obscene profits and less oversight; and, of course, the private health insurance companies, who, once again, will be in total charge of America's health care.

Who loses? Hardworking, regular folks who simply can't afford to underwrite a tax cut for the rich at the expense of their health.

Take my constituent, Shawn, for example. He wrote me to share his ACA story. In 2006, Shawn was diagnosed with HIV and a rare heart condition, and his premiums skyrocketed from $123 a month in 2005, all the way up to $1,473 a month in 2012. That is an average increase of between 35 and 40 percent per year. At the same time, his deductible climbed to $2,900, meaning his insurance wouldn't offer him a dime until he coughed up nearly $3,000 first.

When ObamaCare kicked in in 2014, Shawn had at least a dozen plans to choose from. He selected a platinum plan which delivered better coverage than he previously had for only half the price that he had previously been paying. Let me repeat: because of ObamaCare, Shawn started paying half the price for a better plan. How was it better? As Shawn put it, he no longer faced lifetime caps; he had free wellness visits included in his coverage; instead of a nearly $3,000 deductible, he now had just a small copay.

If the ACA is repealed, Shawn will be uninsured for the first time in his life. For the first time in 54 years, Shawn will be forced to pay out of his own pocket for lifesaving medications. His HIV medications alone cost nearly $30,000 per year--that is three times as much as he pays right now for all of his medical expenses. If he is hospitalized for his heart condition--which has occurred already twice--he will incur tens of thousands of dollars in additional charges. In short, under the Republican's healthcare scheme, Shawn will be financially ruined.

Mr. Speaker, this is utterly unacceptable. The American people deserve access to affordable, accessible, and high quality health care. TrumpCare achieves the opposite. It is a bad deal and a threat to the well-being of our Nation and our people. Beyond that, it is shameful and inhumane.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose TrumpCare in its entirety and vote it down tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, today House Republicans are taking a short break from their crusade to make our air and water dirtier so they can now take the time to make it easier to kill bear cubs and wolf pups on our national wildlife refuges in Alaska.

The rule that this resolution seeks to repeal does not infringe upon the State of Alaska's bizarre campaign to destroy wildlife populations on State lands nor does it prohibit the State from conducting scientifically valid predator control measures on refuge lands.

The massive Federal overreach and trampling of states' rights being claimed by the sponsor of this resolution and its supporters is nothing more than the latest statement of alternative facts by Republicans here in Washington. The truth is both the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act authorize--and, in fact, require--the Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain the natural diversity of refuges in Alaska, regardless of State wildlife laws. This includes protecting healthy populations of apex predators like wolves and bears.

Instead, the rule prevents the use of methods that hunters in our own country agree violate the ``fair chase'' ethical standard that separates sports hunting from pleasure killing. I don't hunt, but no hunter that I know would ever think of catching a bear in a steel trap or luring it in with bait and then shooting it or blowing away a mother wolf and her pups in their den. These are the types of practices this rule bans, and it only prohibits them on national wildlife refuge areas that are owned and maintained by the American people, not the State of Alaska. These tactics are not part of any science-based wildlife management strategy, and despite what Trump's new Education Secretary might think, these measures are not necessary to protect schoolchildren from grizzlies.

This resolution is just another piece of the Republican agenda to hand our public lands over to States and private interests as well as a distraction from the things House Republicans aren't doing.

Where is your infrastructure package?

Where is your solution to make technical education and college more affordable?

Where is your plan to combat climate change?

The answer is that they do not exist. So, instead, we are wasting time on yet another Congressional Review Act resolution, standing idly by without putting people to work fixing our roads, bridges, and energy grid; without training Americans to do the job of today's economy, not to mention tomorrow's; and without lifting a finger to protect people, many of whom are our own constituents, from the worst impacts of global warming.

The only difference between Trump and the House Republicans is that he distracts the public to try to move his agenda, and they distract the public to hide the fact that they can't move theirs. I urge you to stop the distractions and vote ``no'' on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is time to face the facts. Congressional Republicans do not value our Nation's public lands the way everyday Americans do. I know this because they opened the 115th Congress by adopting a rules package that makes it easier to sell our national parks and national forests to the highest bidder without pesky budget rules getting in the way. That was just a start.

Last week, they voted to gut clean water and clean air protections in coal country, suspended a rule requiring oil companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments, and pulled a plug on a waste prevention regulation that would have saved money and improved air quality.

Today, their assault on the environment and our public land continues with this misguided effort to scrap the Bureau of Land Management's effort to update its planning rule. This resolution targets what is commonly known as Planning 2.0, an initiative to make public land management more transparent and efficient by enhancing opportunities for public input and utilizing actual science.

The American public does not support erasing this new planning rule, and they certainly don't support the broad antipublic land agenda being pushed by the Republicans.

Our constituents are sick of seeing corporate interests, especially big polluters, come first. They do not want their national parks and cherished natural places turned over to industrial polluters. We have seen this in the massive response to the Dakota Access pipeline, heartbreak over what happened in Flint, Michigan, and the millions of people who marched worldwide on the first full day of this new administration.

Just last week, we saw how much Americans truly value their public land. After a prominent Republican introduced a bill to sell off more than 3 million acres of taxpayer-owned land, thousands of people picked up the phone and called their Representatives to express their outrage. Because of that passion and deep concern, the sponsor of that bill has vowed to withdraw it from consideration for the first time in five Congresses.

This is an important story because it speaks to our constituents' true priorities. They sent us here to be responsible stewards of their special places. They sent us here to protect their national parks and public lands. They sent us here to make government work for them.

This resolution fails on all those tests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), also a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), who is a new member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, using the Congressional Review Act to nullify a Federal regulation is indeed a radical move. It has only been done once before this year, but now it has become a regular part of the Republican playbook.

BLM's Planning 2.0 is not some midnight regulation that was rushed through at the last minute. BLM went through a transparent rulemaking process and responded to thousands of comments. We had two hearings last year about Planning 2.0 in the Natural Resources Committee. BLM was only invited by the majority to one of the hearings, but the agency listened and made significant changes before publishing their final rule. This rule took 2.5 years to develop. It is not anywhere near a midnight rule.

It has been over 30 years since BLM updated the regulatory framework governing its planning process. That

means we are relying on Reagan-era rules that were put in place before the widespread availability of cellphones and digital mapping techniques to oversee everything from energy permitting to cultural resource management on over 250 million acres.

Everyone engaged in the management of our public lands wants to see this process improved. Planning 2.0 is that opportunity. However, if this resolution becomes law, BLM will never be allowed to evaluate and modernize this process, and we return to management planning from the 1980s. That is not a good outcome for anybody. The resolution is irresponsible and needs to be rejected.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when you don't look at the whole field, you make mistakes. Without using their vision, quarterbacks throw passes into double coverage and Presidents trigger angry protests of their ill- conceived policies. Seeing the whole field is what BLM 2.0 is all about.

Instead of managing lands by looking at isolated units and only soliciting the input of local governments, this new framework takes a landscape view of BLM's multiple use mission. This update is absolutely necessary if we expect BLM to address the problems we all acknowledge the agency has. Climate change, wildfire, drought, and invasive species are just some of the problems that need landscape-level solutions. On the flip side, coordinating planning for outdoor recreation and renewable energy development across multiple BLM units will help increase the growth of these industries.

Rejecting landscape-level planning is like rejecting air traffic control; you can do it, but the results won't be pretty. By repealing this rule and locking a broken system in place in perpetuity, Republicans hope to fulfill their own prophecy that BLM does a poor job managing public lands. If enough people believe them, they think, then maybe they will achieve their goal of giving away America's public lands. The problem, though, is that not enough people believe them. Those who do are shrinking every day, and the ones who don't are making their voices heard.

People who care about sound management of BLM lands know that the Planning 2.0 rule is an important step forward. They know it isn't an abuse of executive authority or a government land grab, and they are tired of hearing from discredited voices who say it is. These views are backward looking and ignore the fact that these lands belong to a kid from Chicago just as much as they do to an oilman from Wyoming.

Landscape-scale planning allows BLM, with the input of all stakeholders, to manage across the lands. Under Planning 2.0, BLM State offices and the scientists and the land management professionals they employ are finally allowed to build a consistent land management policy that doesn't stop at the State line.

Planning 2.0 helps our land managers see the whole field and looks to the future. The majority wants to send us back to the past. We shouldn't allow that to happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

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

Mr. Speaker, using the CRA to repeal this rule would freeze Federal land managers and the places they manage in 1983. That is the year the previous rule was written, and that is the rule we would be stuck with if this resolution passes.

Voting for this resolution means voting for outdated science; it means voting for a return to managing individual parcels with blinders on to the larger landscape; and it means continuing to ignore our changing climate.

Overturning BLM 2.0 means you are okay with ignoring the overwhelming scientific and public support for the planning updates implemented in the rule.

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. There were plenty of great things from the early 1980s: movies like ``Return of the Jedi'' and those early cell phones that were the size of bricks. And don't forget the fashions of the 1980s. I am sure people thought they looked great in parachute pants, but eventually we all updated our wardrobes.

We might have had early cell phones back in the 1980s, but we didn't have modern computing, current technologies for mapping, or even GPS. There is no doubt that it is time to update our land use planning to take advantage of these technologies and respond to new challenges and to current times.

So why are congressional Republicans so interested in blasting us back to the past? Why are they so eager to throw away 2\1/2\ years of public input into a modern, transparent, science-driven planning process?

They allege some local counties aren't happy, but we have got letters from counties saying that they support the rule, and thousands of pages of comments from the agency demonstrating that they responded to any concerns. This can't be the real motivation, Mr. Speaker.

No, the true purpose of this resolution is to tie the hands of Federal land managers so they can't manage special places in ways that might hinder pollution or cut down on private profiteering. Apparently, congressional Republicans have decided to give Representative Zinke a parting gift as he leaves to be Secretary of the Interior. That gift is a pair of handcuffs.

If you have updated your wardrobe or your cell phone since 1983, or if you enjoy the luxury of Google Maps or GPS, I urge you to oppose this resolution because it fails to update our ability to protect our precious public lands.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the BLM 2.0 rule represents the turning back of a clock of ignoring science, ignoring the need for public participation.

Although Republicans claim they want to take power away from government and give it to the people, why do they oppose every attempt to actually do that?

They don't want the people to use citizen suits to hold polluters accountable. They don't want the people to use the NEPA process to ensure government actions aren't harming their communities. Today, they don't want the people to have increased participation in managing our public lands.

The reason, of course, is that Republicans don't want all people to have a seat at the table. They only want certain people to be there.

In this case, the old BLM planning process gave local governments in the West--many of which are cozy with mining, drilling, and grazing interests--a privileged position in influencing land management planning. Given that these public lands belong to all Americans and not just those who happen to live close to them, that approach was wrong.

BLM's Planning 2.0 rule changes that, leveling the playing field and allowing more stakeholders and interested parties to get involved earlier.

Under BLM's new rule, tribes, local governments, and stakeholders across the spectrum who care about these places where they work, recreate, hunt, fish, and live are all now encouraged to provide input at the outset instead of waiting until the bitter end. This will save time and money, reduce litigation, and generally make government work better.

So why would Republicans oppose it?

Hunters, anglers, and others who value the outdoors are asking the same question and are lining up in opposition to this misguided resolution and other bills that would reduce their access to public land.

The people have grown wise to the Republican crusade to give away ownership of and authority over their lands to States, localities, and private interests. They have grown very weary of that. They understand that this resolution is part of that crusade.

So Republicans have a choice. They can continue doing favors for the dirty development interests of the past or they can embrace policies like BLM 2.0 and use it to give a boost to the ongoing jobs boom in sectors like solar, wind, and outdoor recreation. For the sake of Western economies and landscapes, I hope they choose the latter.

Planning 2.0 finally recognizes the value of the public's voice in the planning process. Let's not silence them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to this resolution. These letters come from a broad array of stakeholders, including sportsmen, county commissioners, county supervisors, and conservationists, highlighting the breadth and depth of support for Planning 2.0.

February 6, 2017.

Dear Representative: As organizations committed to

preserving our nation's historic and cultural resources, we

urge you to OPPOSE the Congressional Review Act resolution

(H.J. Res. 44) to nullify the Bureau of Land Management's

final planning rule, commonly referred to as BLM Planning

2.0.

The Congressional Review Act is the wrong tool to address

resource management planning. While no regulation is perfect,

using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Planning

2.0 rule would have far-reaching implications for cultural

resources and management of our public lands. This resolution

of disapproval would prohibit the BLM from developing any

``substantially similar'' regulation in the future. The

result would be to replace the new regulation with BLM's

prior planning rule, which is more than 30 years old and does

not incorporate current technology and streamlining practices

to maximize efficient and effective decision-making. Locking

in inefficient and outdated regulations does not serve any

users of our public lands.

The BLM's Planning 2.0 rule is designed to bring much

needed efficiency, predictability, and transparency to BLM's

management of multiple uses on public lands. The rule is

carefully crafted to collect state and local government,

tribal, and public input early in the planning process. In

addition to making BLM's planning more efficient, improving

available information allows project developers to consider

potential impacts to environmental, cultural, and historic

resources at the outset rather than being surprised by

stakeholder concerns and information identified late in the

process. The rule also improves the planning process by

reducing the need for costly and time-consuming supplements

that can delay decision-making and inhibit private sector

investment.

The BLM's Planning 2.0 rule updates procedures for

developing individual resource management plans that guide

actions and decisions on the nearly 250 million surface acres

and more than 700 million acres of subsurface mineral

resources that the agency manages. These lands contain the

largest, most diverse, and scientifically most important body

of cultural resources of any federal land management agency,

including well over a million historic, archaeological, and

other cultural sites. Our organizations remain committed to

promoting a responsible land management planning process that

enhances public involvement, improves transparency, and

promotes sound, efficient decision-making based on full

information, including better data on cultural resources on

our public lands.

If the resolution passes, it will make management of our

public lands less efficient and less effective. Again, we

urge you to OPPOSE the Congressional Review Act resolution to

overturn the BLM Planning 2.0 rule.

Sincerely,

National Trust for Historic Preservation; American

Anthropological Association; American Cultural Resources

Association; Archaeology Southwest; Arizona Preservation

Foundation; Cienega Watershed Partnership; City of Kingman,

AZ; Coalition for American Heritage; Colorado Plateau

Archaeological Alliance; Conservation Lands Foundation;

Friends of Cedar Mesa.

Friends of Organ Mountains Desert Peaks; Friends of the

Agua Fria National Monument; Friends of the Cliffs; Modern

Phoenix; Montana Preservation Alliance; National Association

of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers; Nevada Preservation

Foundation; Site Steward Foundation; Society for American

Archaeology; Washington Trust for Historic Preservation.

Congressional Republicans have a scorched Earth policy when it comes to anything originated under President Obama. It is the same approach with the Affordable Care Act. They want to completely destroy it, regardless of any merits.

The majority is not spending all this time and effort simply to repeal this planning rule. This is one of the steps in their massive campaign to convince Americans that Barack Obama wasn't a good President. They simply can't stand to allow the accomplishments of the previous administration to stand, so they reflexively strike out to destroy anything President Obama supported.

This is not legislating. It is certainly not public service, and it isn't even smart. To paraphrase a former Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn: anybody can kick down a barn; it takes a carpenter to build one.

This isn't how our government is supposed to work. It is especially counterproductive when it comes to something like Planning 2.0, which is specifically designed to make a Federal agency more efficient and more transparent.

The BLM rule is about bringing our land use plans into the 21st century. It is about local input. It is about using the best available science. The majority wants to return to 1983 so that polluters and developers are the only ones with a seat at the table.

We should support BLM 2.0, reject this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

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

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

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

I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which would put coal company profits ahead of clean water and public health. The stream protection rule has been in development for 7 years and puts in place modest, commonsense protections for people who live near coal mines.

This isn't just a rule to protect streams. This is a rule to protect people's health, to protect people's homes, and to protect the clean water that they rely on. These folks felt strongly enough about this rule to submit public comments.

The rule is designed to protect people like Donetta from West Virginia, who nearly lost her life when chemicals from coal fields found their way into her water supply and interacted with her medication in such a way that it nearly destroyed her liver.

The rule is designed to protect people like John from Alabama, who reports lakes that have turned gray and streams that have turned orange.

This rule is designed to protect people like David from Tennessee, who watched a creek near his grandmother's home become lifeless due to strip mining nearby.

This rule is designed to protect people like Josh from North Carolina, who can no longer fish in the streams near a family home and wants coal companies to be held accountable for the damage that they did.

This rule is designed to protect people like Jonita from Kentucky, a coal miner's daughter whose water supply is tainted with heavy metal and other toxins from coal sludge. She wrote: ``Coal put the food on my table. It also put the poison in my water. Reasonable trade-off?''

I don't believe that Jonita or anyone else should have to make that trade-off. No one's water supply should be sacrificed in the name of higher bonuses for coal company CEOs. Those coal executives have made it their overriding goal to kill this regulation; and after spending nearly $50 million on political campaign contributions over the past 6 years, they now have a Congress and a President to do it.

So for the first time in 16 years and just the second time ever, Republicans are going back to Newt Gingrich's playbook and trying to successfully use the Congressional Review Act simply because the coal industry feels like it shouldn't be held accountable.

But as we know, this is only the first of five regulations that we will be repealing just this week. Later today, they are going to get rid of the rule

that requires increased transparency on the part of oil, gas, and the mining industry. Later this week, we will be fighting for the right of oil and gas companies to pollute the air with methane.

This is the Republican agenda in the age of Trump; an attack on clean water, an attack on clean air, an attack on transparency, and an attack on human health. If you are a CEO or a wealthy Republican donor, this is great news; and you will love the next couple of years. But if you are an ordinary American that depends on their government to hold companies accountable through tough but fair enforcement of regulations, you should be extremely worried.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Resources.

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted for the record that the Republican majority conducted a 4-year investigation into the development of this rule, holding 12 hearings, issuing two subpoenas, collecting 25 hours of audio recordings and 13,500 pages of documents, but were unable to uncover any political interference or misconduct in the development of this rule.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Mr. Speaker, if there is a war on coal, it is being led by the natural gas industry who produces a cheaper product at a lower cost. And if there is any trouble that coal is in, it is directly attributed to the free market and that competition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would like to read a few lines from letters of opposition to this resolution. The first comes from a coalition of 75 national and local environmental groups who are strongly opposed to this bill.

They write: ``This long awaited rule provides local communities with information they desperately need about water pollution caused by nearby coal mining operations, and includes several important protections for clean water and the health of communities surrounding coal mining operations. Any attack on the safeguards in the Stream Protection Rule is an attack on clean water and should be opposed.''

Wildlife and sportsman groups are also opposed.

The National Wildlife Federation writes: ``The Stream Protection Rule is an important water quality rule for our nation. It seeks to empower State regulatory authorities to ensure coal mining and reclamation best practices, taking into account their unique regional distinctions and impacts to local communities and wildlife.

``. . . any efforts to undermine the safeguards afforded by the finalized Stream Protection Rule, a rule with years of stakeholder outreach and engagement, would be an attack on clean water and should be opposed.''

Travel Unlimited says: ``The rule is a worthy, sensible effort to reduce the huge impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining . . . on our Appalachian streams and rivers.''

And it goes on and on. They all go on to point out the specific impact of mountaintop removal mining on fishing and wildlife and sportsmen.

``Mountaintop removal mining practices create a survival risk for brook trout and other wild trout populations, and impede efforts to restore brook trout in already degraded watersheds.''

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

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

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

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

The use of the Congressional Review Act has been categorized as reckless and extreme. The CRA was going to cause significant and lasting harm.

If successful, two things are going to happen: the regulation is void and the agency is prohibited from issuing another similar rule ever again.

I mention that because this is about health. It is about the health of the people living around those mining operations and it is about mountaintop removal and the documented analysis

that proves that it is a danger to health. It contaminates water and it is destructive to the environment.

It is curious that we had 13 hearings--I stand corrected--and an investigation that went on in perpetuity, it seemed like. Yet, once the rule was finalized and published in 2015, we never had another hearing on the item again, which begs the question: If the whole point was to delay and prevent this rule from ever taking effect and, more importantly, make it susceptible to the Congressional Review Act, mission accomplished for the majority.

But the long-term consequences of using the CRA on a rule that is designed to protect people's health, on a rule that is designed to make coal companies be transparent and disclose to the public, on a rule that every scientific analysis and the science is clear that this rule was indeed there to protect both people and communities, I think that is the permanent harm being done by this action today--denying the people in those communities to return to past practices that created the problem that we are dealing with and that this rule attempted to address that created that problem.

Now we return to those times where unregulated mountaintop removal causes the destruction to both human beings and the environment that we see as a legacy. I think it is not only disrespectful to the people of those regions, but it, again, puts their health and the well-being of both the environment and humanity in that area at major risk. It is not only reckless and extreme to use the CRA, it is also dangerous.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, our opposition to this action being proposed by the Republicans to eliminate the stream protection rule is, indeed, an action that goes against fundamental science, goes against the public health of the American people in those communities, and, overall, takes the Congressional Review Act and uses it as a bludgeon to keep generations and generations in those areas at risk in their health, their water, and the general environment in the area.

The issue of cost is an issue that comes up. The loss of jobs has been the creation of competition, not because of any proposed rule.

Second of all, when we were dealing with the horrors of black lung, we were dealing with issues of mine safety for coal miners and the struggles that their unions had to go through to get mine safety and healthcare protection for their workers.

At the time, I am sure, those were considered cost factors and why not do it. The cost factor here is about human life and it is about protection of water. I would suggest that that should be the priority of this Congress and not emboldening or enriching the mine operators and their profit line.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote. I think the arguments have been made. The precedent being set tonight by this House is a dangerous and extreme precedent that we will all come to regret. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell my constituents that I will not be attending the inauguration of Donald Trump as our next President.

My absence is not motivated by disrespect for the office or motivated by disrespect for the government that we have in this great democracy but as an individual act, yes, of defiance at the disrespect shown to millions and millions of Americans by this incoming administration and by the actions we are taking in this Congress.

The majority of voters rejected Trump. They deserve respect. The 20 million-plus Americans threatened by the repeal of the Affordable Care Act without a replacement deserve respect. The millions who did not vote because they blame both parties deserve respect.

I will be at home in Arizona meeting with seniors, the immigrant community, folks who care about the environment and climate change, healthcare providers, and marching in Tucson with folks who will demand respect. I will be talking about the need to defend and protect the future for all Americans.

Rather than participate in the inauguration, I will be participating in my district and reaffirming and renewing this democracy and the people that are part of it.

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

Mr. Chairman, today, this Republican Congress is taking a short break from trying to destroy our healthcare system to try to destroy the rest of the Federal Government.

H.R. 5 is nothing more than Republicans seeking to micromanage the regulatory process to death. They claim they only want good government. In reality, they want no government at all. They want to wrap Federal agencies in so much red tape that they won't be able to move to protect our health, our safety, or our natural resources.

Language in title III tries to prevent Federal land managers from actually managing Federal lands. This language would make land managers jump through the same procedural hoops over and over again just to put a new land management plan in place. These new requirements are completely redundant, which is, of course, the point.

Federal land management plans already go through extensive review, including by the public, before they are ever even implemented. One way we know this is that the House Republicans complain constantly about how long it takes Federal agencies to come up with a decision. Yet, here they are claiming that this Republican Congress knows best how our public lands and resources should be managed.

Let's stop and look at the record. Last Tuesday, almost every single Republican Member of this House voted for a change in our House standing rules to calculate the value of all Federal lands as zero for accounting purposes. Yes, House Republicans agree that all Federal lands are essentially worthless.

Then, on Thursday of this week, 229 House Republicans voted against an amendment I offered to another bill to declare that climate change is real. Yes, 95 percent of House Republicans voted to deny a settled scientific fact.

Yet, here we are today with the same House Republicans who deny science; the same House Republicans who think public lands are worthless, claiming they know how to manage these public lands.

Science deniers and those who think our public lands have no value have no credibility when they bring legislation to this floor claiming that they want to improve public land management. As with health care, as with so many things, they don't want to improve it; they want to destroy it.

Congressional Republicans have proved themselves completely incapable of building or preserving anything. They are only interested in tearing things down, starting with health, safety, and environmental protections for our people and our communities.

This bill would needlessly tip the scales in favor of corporate polluters who want to be in power to ruin our public lands, taking the resources and the profits for themselves, leaving the American people with the mess and the consequences.

My amendment strikes the section of this bill intended to turn our public land management process into nothing more than a board meeting of the American Petroleum Institute.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of my esteemed colleague. We have to get past the point where we are just talking about repeal. As the President so eloquently said last night, if there is something that is going to improve the health and well-being of the American people relative to the Affordable Care Act, then bring it forward. We all have been waiting patiently for the Republican majority to bring something forward that not only repeals but replaces. We are still waiting.

In terms of this amendment, the resource management plans are the backbone for every action and approved use on BLM land. It is about scoping. It is about public input, collaborative with State, local, tribal, and user groups across the spectrum, and that is the process that is in place now, a process that deserves to be continued, ratified, and protected.

As far as the issue of climate change, the President eloquently said last night that we should go forward on the issue of climate change, putting science and reason as a priority on how we have that discussion. Once the majority is prepared to deal with science and reason, I think our side of the aisle is willing to do so as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I object to the certificate from the State of North Carolina based on violations of the Voting Rights Act and confirmed hacking by the--

There is a signature from the House of Representatives, myself, and--

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the loss of a great Arizonan and American, Patrick J. Mitchell, 61, from Yuma, Arizona, who worked in Washington for many years, on November 27, 2016. Pat was a trusted advisor and advocate for many in Congress and he will be missed as a powerful advocate (with an Arizona perspective) for education, environment and natural resources, and labor issues in Washington DC councils.

Born in Yuma, AZ, on April 13, 1955, Pat was an accomplished athlete at Yuma High School where he was elected student body president. He went on to his beloved University of Arizona where he was elected student body president and from which he graduated in 1977. He received his Juris Doctorate from Arizona State University in 1981. Pat spent the next 35 years in politics and government fighting to improve the lives of others. He served as a congressional aide to Arizona Senator Dennis DeConcini, chief of staff to Representative Louise Slaughter from New York, political advisor to Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and the late Representative Mo Udall from Arizona, and senior advisor to two presidential campaigns, including serving with the Simon campaign in Iowa. Pat also was a special assistant attorney general for the State of Arizona. He went on to start his own government affairs firm, Strategic Impact in Washington D.C., where he focused on appropriations, water and land management, and higher education issues. A beloved Arizona Wildcat fan, Pat was a member of the UA Bobcat Senior Honorary Society and served on the university's alumni board. He was also deeply involved with the Yuma community and in supporting Yuma's Catholic High School.

Pat cherished his family and he is predeceased by his parents, Henry and Helen (Curry) Mitchell of Yuma, and is survived by his brother Bryan Mitchell, sister Kathleen Dyer, nephews Ian and Dan Mitchell, and grandnieces Erin and Emily Mitchell. He often spoke of his father's military service to the nation.

Pat worked hard to ensure that the working families of Arizona had a voice when it came to national policy and debates, whether related to access to higher education or the natural beauty of the Nation. Pat was among those that rose to the challenge in a Republic that needs the best to engage in these national discussions. Few in this world loved their state and its people more.

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

Mr. Chairman, for years my Republican friends have been trying to convince everyone that Federal agencies are scary and unpopular. In reality, Americans support Federal rules that protect them from injuries, diseases, and death. They always have and they always will. The people we represent don't want those rules to go away. They want stronger rules to protect their jobs, their pay, their health, and their fair treatment in the workplace.

Let's remember that it takes years to finalize most rules. Before an agency makes a rule, it considers science, costs, benefits, public stakeholder input, and public comments. Republicans have invented stories about surprise regulations that appear out of nowhere. These stories sound interesting until you realize they were invented to help their corporate friends get where they want. We know where this will lead us. Big banks got away with robbing us and creating a major recession because they weren't regulated strongly enough. Republicans think the answer is making it harder to regulate them.

If this bill passes, it won't be the nameless, faceless, unelected corporate CEOs who feel the pain. It will be the Americans from big cities and small towns who need Federal standards to keep their environment clean, to keep their workplace safe, and to make sure the products they buy won't hurt their families.

My Democratic colleagues are offering amendments today that exempt certain kinds of rules from the unrealistic burdens this bill creates. I support these amendments.

My amendment is a little different. It is not nearly enough to save this terrible bill, but it takes a big step in the right direction. It acknowledges that doing nothing carries a major cost.

It acknowledges human-caused climate change and requires agencies that propose regulations to report on how a rule impacts greenhouse gas emissions. If we require reporting a rule's costs, we should also report its impacts to our planet and to our way of life.

It also requires an analysis of a rule's impacts on low-income and rural communities. My Republican friends are deeply concerned about whether new regulations make big business and Wall Street investors happy. I think it is time we assess the impacts of regulations on the urban poor, the rural poor, or on coastal Native American tribes already fleeing the impacts of climate change, or the farmers in the West and South struggling to cope with drought, flooding, and extreme weather.

Finally, my amendment requires congressional approval of any regulation that would increase carbon pollution by 25,000 metric tons or more, or could increase cancer, birth defects, kidney disease, or cardiovascular or respiratory illness.

If House Republicans are so eager to rewrite the regulatory process, they should be willing to cast recorded votes allowing the release of tens of thousands of metric tons of pollution into our air. They should publicly vote to increase the rates of these terrible diseases among their constituents.

Passing this amendment is the very least we can do to make sure the bill doesn't put Americans at risk of injury and death.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that the REINS Act is one sweeping piece of legislation that does not take into account public health, does not take into account clean air, clean water, and the effects of constituents and the American people, the environment, or the cost attended with increased illnesses. With that sweeping deregulation process that is being proposed by the majority, we have an exposure on issues of public health, clean air, clean water, and the regulations that are in place to protect the public health and the well-being of the American people.

My amendment just requires that, if these sweeping changes are to occur, Members of this body take the votes that would release additional metric tons into the atmosphere that would promote and increase the levels of disease in this country that is harmful to the American people. It is one of disclosure and accountability if the Members, indeed, are the ones that want to make the final decision.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Donald ``Don'' J. Hellmann. Don is retiring from his position as the Assistant Director for Legislative and Congressional Affairs in the National Park Service after 22 years of communicating the mission and goals of the National Park Service to Congress and working closely with our members and staff to advance the Service's legislative priorities. Don's vast knowledge of environmental law and policy, his expertise in drafting National Park Service legislation, and his exemplary dedication to public service will be greatly missed by those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him.

Don joined the National Park Service in 1994 as the Deputy Assistant Director for Legislative and Congressional Affairs. He led a staff of legislative specialists in developing National Park Service legislation, advised National Park Service leadership on pending legislation, and served as a liaison with members of Congress on legislation affecting the National Park Service. He was promoted to the position of Assistant Director in 2009 by Director Jonathan B. Jarvis.

Over the course of his career, Don drafted hundreds of bills and amendments affecting national parks, national heritage areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national scenic and historic trails that were ultimately enacted by Congress. He was instrumental in crafting all the major park-related legislative packages of the last two decades, including the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333), the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-391), the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (P.L. 110- 229), the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11), and Title XXX of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291).

Don also played a key role in the reorganization and transfer of National Park System-wide laws from title 16 to title 54 of the United States Code, enacted in 2014 (P.L. 113-287) which has made the drafting of park-related legislation significantly more streamlined. Most recently, he was the principal author of the legislative proposal, the National Park Service Centennial Act, that President Obama sent to Congress in 2015. Legislation based on that proposal passed the House on December 6.

Prior to working for the National Park Service, Don was Vice President for Conservation at The Wilderness Society, where he directed the conservation advocacy program and coordinated the litigation agenda of the organization. Before assuming this position, Don served as Legislative Counsel for the society. Don joined The Wilderness Society's staff in 1988.

Don also worked here on Capitol Hill as Legislative Counsel to House Majority Whip Tony Coelho (D-CA) from 1985 to 1988 and as a Legislative Assistant and in other roles to U.S. Senator Walter D. Huddleston (D- KY) from 1977 to 1985. Don taught History and English to junior high school students in Kentucky from 1973 to 1976.

Don is a native of Kentucky who received a B.A. in History/Secondary Education from Thomas More College in Crestview Hills, Kentucky, an M.A. in Politics from Catholic University of America, and a J.D. from the University of Baltimore. He is a member of the District of Columbia Bar and holds a Life Certification as a Secondary Education Teacher from the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

A resident of Annandale, Va., his favorite national park is Maui's Haleakala, which is centered around a volcanic crater that he described as ``like walking on the moon.''

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Don on his retirement and expressing our deep appreciation for his outstanding contributions to the National Park Service and to the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the Tucson Peace Center's Peace Fair and Music Festival on its 33rd Anniversary next Saturday, February 28, 2015.

The Tucson Peace Center is an umbrella organization for 150 of Tucson's local peace, social justice, environmental, and labor groups. Regular Peace Fair participants include the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom (WILPF, celebrating their 100th anniversary this year), Move to Amend, Veterans for Peace, the American Civil Liberties Union, AZ4NORML, Jobs With Justice, Nuclear Resister, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Watershed Management Group among many others. Newly formed organizations like $15 Now, Arizonans for Gun Safety, Tucson United for Climate Action (TUCAN), and Friends of Rosa will also be on hand.

The Peace Fair and Music Festival is an opportunity for residents to learn what is happening in their community while you catch up with old friends and make new ones. There are free activities for the kids like a labyrinth, face-painting, and a whimsy parade. The Culture of Peace Alliance will offer hands-on activities to entertain young fair-goers.

This year's theme is challenging poverty. Growing income inequality and stagnating working-class wages place many friends and neighbors in precarious financial positions. As a community, we seek answers to the structural problems that exacerbate poverty. We also offer an opportunity to enrich our lives through meaningful engagement and re- envisioning what constitutes true wealth on a planet undergoing massive ecological changes.

I want to acknowledge all of the dedicated workers from the 150 local peace, social justice, environmental and labor groups who volunteer their time to make the Peace Fair and Music Festival happen every year.

Congratulations and best wishes to the Tucson Peace Center's Peace Fair and Music Festival as we join to celebrate its 33rd year of expanding peace in the Tucson community.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the Pueblo Gardens Neighborhood Association's Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Breakfast on the occasion of its 25th Anniversary this Saturday, January 17, 2015.

This breakfast tradition was established in Tucson in 1990 by community activists John McNair and Edwina Gomez along with others to honor the great civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They are working to keep his dream of fair and equitable treatment alive by fundraising for at-risk neighborhood youth to help them achieve their own dreams. In turn, youth are asked to perform community service projects that benefit the city of Tucson. In 1997, long-time community activist, James E. Christopher became Chairman of the program. As Chairman for the past eighteen years, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Breakfast has increased in attendance from thirteen people in its first breakfast to an average of one hundred and seventy-five in current years.

Pueblo Gardens' Martin Luther King, Jr. Breakfast has the distinguished honor of being the sole neighborhood in Tucson to attract city, county, state, and federal dignitaries, along with radio, television and newspaper coverage for an event of its kind.

Dr. King's dream has started to come to light with the election of an African-American president, Latina woman sworn into the Supreme Court, the acknowledgement of gay members in the military, and so forth. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Breakfast funding has enabled many youth to graduate from high school and continue on to receive post-secondary education certificates and degrees. Many of these youth have become part of the Tucson workforce and are valuable assets to the community.

Finally, I must acknowledge the cast of dedicated volunteer board members who work diligently to fundraise and continue the breakfast tradition while working through the Pueblo Garden Neighborhood Association, a designated 501(c)(3) organization.

Congratulations and best wishes to the Pueblo Gardens Neighborhood Association in Tucson as we join them to celebrate on January 17, 2015, for its 25th Anniversary of their Martin Luther King, Jr. Breakfast. I thank the Pueblo Gardens MLK Breakfast Committee for their steadfast determination to keep Dr. King's dream alive while helping youth achieve their goals.