Floor Statements

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

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

This amendment would prevent funds from being used to expand EPA authority pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act.

Now, this isn't an amendment to assail the Clean Air Act, but there is a flaw with it, which is section 115. That section of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to mandate State emissions levels to whatever amount the agency deems appropriate if they find two things. They have to find that U.S. emissions endanger a foreign nation; and the endangered nation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control emissions in their own nation.

Now, it was previously argued that the Paris climate agreement met those requirements. When they wrote the Clean Air Act back in the 1970s, they never foresaw the Paris Agreement. And the Paris Agreement is not a treaty. It is an agreement.

Fortunately, President Trump's decision to withdraw from the agreement has alleviated those prior concerns. Whether you agree with this President or the last one or the future President is immaterial. The point is that this portion of the law shouldn't exist. That authority shouldn't exist at the executive level, especially when we don't do treaties anymore.

Despite the temporary relief, the fact remains that section 115 of the Clean Air Act is just simply bad policy. Section 115 delegates an incredible amount of authority to the executive branch without any safeguards, without any oversight by the legislative branch.

This amendment would block the use of section 115 to delegate this power over the energy sector, over our States, to the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA.

In the future, such expansive authority at the EPA could be economically devastating and could threaten the reliability and viability of our Nation's energy sector without any checks and balances.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Yes, ma'am.

If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, what I am concerned about is not necessarily the Trump administration or the Obama administration. Any administration with the unbridled power that section 115 gives the administration, without any checks or balances, to make an agreement with another nation and then enforce--have their agency enforce their regulations at whatever they deem appropriate on every single State in the United States, without any ability of Congress to intervene whatsoever.

It is not particular to this administration, the last administration, or any future administration. It is particular to all of them. The authority, in my opinion, should not exist for them to do that without any checks and balances from the legislative branch.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

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

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

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

This amendment would prohibit the use of funds for FMCSA and NHTSA-- two agencies--to finalize their joint notice of proposed rulemaking mandating the use of speed limiting devices on heavy-duty trucks and buses.

To support their proposal, FMCSA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration focused on the potential decrease in the severity of accidents. However, the severity of accidents is already trending downward, Mr. Chairman.

As a matter of fact, the large truck-involved fatal crash rate per 100 million miles has dropped 74 percent since 1980. Bus-involved fatal crash rate per 100 million miles has dropped 71 percent since 1980 without the Federal Government's involvement in speed limiting device. It is not clear that the mandate would further reduce these crashes.

According to the FMCSA reports, 74.1 percent of truck-involved fatal crashes occur on noninterstates with speed limits lower than the proposed levels. So they are going to put the speed limiter on, but it is not even going to apply where the accidents happen.

These are significant concerns that this mandate may actually increase the number of accidents. Studies have consistently shown that a higher variance of vehicle speed increases accident risk. It is not good to have some vehicles going slow and some going really fast in the same place.

Speed limiters create speed differentials among vehicles. As interaction among these vehicles increases, so does the likelihood of more accidents.

Speed limiters will result in lost productivity, necessitating more heavy-duty vehicles on the road to support current demand because they won't be able to get the product where they want to get it to because they are all going to be going slower, mandated by the Federal Government. Thank goodness the Good Idea Fairy from the Federal Government showed up where nobody asked them to.

Finally, this proposal disregards the authority of States to determine speed limits within their borders.

Again, thank goodness the Federal Government is here to tell all 50 States how to run their railroads and run their highways and their speed limits.

If speed limiters led to fuel savings and increased safety, the market will incentivize the use of these devices. The market does this and does it well

and does it best. However, it is not their role. This is not the role of the Federal Government to mandate their use.

Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for less money or more money. I am asking you to save money and save freedom for the American people, make sure their products get to their homes on time, and to get the Federal Government out of the way of one truck trying to pass another one, one doing 54 and another one doing 54.1 miles an hour for 20 miles up the highway.

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

Mr. Chairman, the facts are clear that, as I stated, large truck-involved fatal crashes per 100 million miles has dropped 74 percent since 1980, before speed limiters were even available. Bus- involved fatal crashes per 100 million miles has dropped 71 percent since 1980, before all this happened.

Somehow the private sector doesn't want to crash their trucks, and if the private sector and certain companies want to install the speed limiters, they do that because they don't want to crash their trucks. Guess what, folks. Most people don't want to crash their trucks.

Another thing. You know, we love these agencies to do the things that we don't want to do, apparently, and then we create them, and then they do things that we don't want them to do, and we say: Well, we abrogate to ourselves.

Yeah, we were duly elected by the citizens of this country to run the country. They didn't elect any of these people to come up with these rules. They don't want them. So I am here to defend the people that want freedom and don't want nameless, faceless, account-less bureaucrats running our lives. And this is one instance where they are doing it.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for positive consideration of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today I offer my sincere congratulations to my constituent, Delilah Rumburg, on her upcoming retirement after more than 23 years of service as Chief Executive Officer of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape (PCAR).

Delilah began her service to our community in 1981, at ACCESS York, a domestic violence shelter in the 4th Congressional District. In her own words, she knew she found her life's work and later joined PCAR as its CEO in 1995. Since then, she has lead PCAR's tremendous growth and outreach to communities in Pennsylvania and throughout the Nation. Delilah served on the Pennsylvania Task Force for Child Protection, as the Civilian Deputy Co-Chair of the Department of Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, and as Co-Chair of the U.S. Department of Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies.

Delilah's tireless dedication, professionalism and passion towards ending sexual violence has touched the lives of countless people and challenged all with whom she served to be the best. Her legacy of service to our community and Nation truly is admirable.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I commend and congratulate Delilah Rumburg on her tireless service, and wish her and her family continued great success in their future adventures.

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

Mr. Chairman, our Nation is $20 trillion in debt, and there might be $100 trillion or $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I am not sure we really know what the answer is there. But we have got to find a way to reduce our spending and make sure that the things we are paying for are worthy and that we are getting something--we are actually getting what we are paying for.

I am offering an amendment to H.R. 3219 to reduce the appropriations to the Congressional Budget Office by 50.4 percent.

We all know and agree the Congressional Budget Office is tasked with determining the budget and economic impacts of proposed legislation which are critical to our everyday decisions. Oftentimes, they are late, and, unfortunately, too often they are woefully incorrect.

I don't mean to impugn the fine people who work at the CBO, but something is amiss. If we keep on accepting it, how are we ever going to get our policy right?

The CBO's fiscal analysis is consistently incorrect, and, as a result, has detrimental implications on a variety of policies.

This amendment reduces the CBO's fiscal year '18 appropriations by 50.4 percent which just happens to be the exact same percentage that the CBO was off when it predicted the enrollment numbers for the Affordable Care Act exchanges in 2016.

In 2010, the CBO projected that 21 million people would enroll in the exchange plans by 2016. The actual enrollment was about 10.4 million people. That is an error of 50.4 percent, Mr. Chairman.

Now, maybe the CBO's projections would have improved as the ACA continued to take shape after 2010, and that seems reasonable. That is not correct. That is wrong. It didn't improve. Four years later, the CBO predicted that, from 2016, between 23 and 25 million people would receive coverage through the exchanges. In 2014, the updated CBO analysis projected that 24 million people would receive coverage through the exchange in 2016. However, the actual 2016 enrollment in the ACA exchanges was 10.4 million people.

So it is less than half. They always predict about twice as much, or costs twice as much, and the numbers always seem to be half as much. That is a big deal.

We passed the American Health Care Act in here, and I went to my townhall, and CBO is saying: well, 23 to 24 million people are going to lose their insurance because of the American Health Care Act.

Well, yes, if you use the CBO's numbers which based the analysis on what they projected.

They don't even look at reality. We have got the reality right now. The reality is 10.4 million people, not 23 and 25 million--10.4. But that is how they view this thing, and that is what we vote on here. That is a problem.

I also want to highlight the failure of the CBO to forecast the cost of the Medicaid expansion. In 2013, the CBO projected that 34 million people would be on Medicaid or CHIP in 2016; however, in 2016, the CBO doubled, once again, they doubled their earlier estimates to 68 million people.

I mean, who gets to be off by that much and still receive--it is not like there is no accountability; there isn't any accountability, Mr. Chairman.

As a result, in March of 2016, the CBO increased its projection of Federal spending for Medicaid by $146 billion. These are figures that we make decisions on around here.

Mr. Chairman, the CBO simply must be held accountable for its consistent failure to accurately or even reasonably predict budget and economic impacts of legislation. CBO is a critical contribution to our discussion and decisionmaking. We simply need to be able to depend on it as such.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I don't disagree with my colleagues on the other side. I said that. We need the CBO. We created the CBO. Congress needs to have reliable information.

The problem is, it is not reliable. It is not reliable on the testimony that was just given against this amendment. That is the problem.

The CBO--right now where there are 10.4 enrollees--is telling us, in 2 years, there are going to be 25 million enrollees. Meanwhile, there are less exchanges open, and there are fewer insurers available. It is not going up; it is going down.

The CBO, when we say that they would reflect the current time, they absolutely don't. That is the problem. They don't even reflect reality when reality is right in front of them. The CBO needs to wake up. Who among us works for half the time and gets it doubly wrong and gets the same paycheck? The CBO.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking the chairman of the full committee for his extraordinary work and for the chairman of the subcommittee for this auspicious opportunity.

I have been listening to the arguments recently that we have had on the floor regarding the most recent amendments between fossil fuels and renewables, and I am hoping to strike a sweet spot here. I am not picking on fossil fuels, and I am going to talk about a renewable that I think everybody has an affinity for and an agreement with.

This amendment simply increases funding for hydroelectric through the EERE by $15 million and decreases funding to the bureaucracy. There is no increase to the budget. This amendment just increases the appropriation for the Office of Energy and Efficiency and Renewable Energy because hydropower is available in every region of the country; 2,200 hydropower plants provide America's most abundant source of clean, renewable electricity. I would say it is the first renewable. It accounts for 67 percent of domestic renewable generation and, clearly, 7 percent of total electricity generation.

By 2025, hydropower would create almost a million and a half new, good, high-paying jobs. It can be implemented in rivers, harbors, coastal areas, et cetera, to capture energy from currents and tides. Harnessing this energy will create a truly and absolutely renewable and green source of energy without any emissions and with little fanfare to everybody involved.

Hydro is predictable year-round power output, while other renewable source outputs can be variable in some areas and necessitate the use of large battery banks and alternate power sources. For instance, sometimes when the wind doesn't blow, believe it or not, if you don't know it, there is a gas-fired generator often associated with those windmill farms that has to come on because base load isn't being serviced.

Hydropower facilities are quiet, unobtrusive, while many people report that considerable noise is generated by wind power and that land is taken up by huge solar farms.

Hydropower is base load energy. That means it is on all the time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, just sitting there turning out the power so that you can hit the light switch when you come home and not wonder: Is the power going to be on? It backs up other intermittent sources of energy.

Hydropower is safe. It harms neither fish nor man. It all faces a comprehensive and regular regulatory approval process.

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

Mr. Chairman, a lot of what we hear is is that our constituents wish that we would work together more often, and I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her support; and I think it is just proof that we can work together for something that we agree on, which is clean power, the power to just power our future, and that comes from hydroelectricity.

I don't know why it is not as sexy as it should be. I think it is one of the greatest marvels of technology starting back since the beginning of time and when power was first generated, and I don't understand why we don't rely on it more.

To that end, literally 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits and projects await final approval and are pending before FERC in 45 States right now. Eighty thousand--80,000--nonpowered dams in the United States, of which 600 have immediate hydro capability, right now could be producing energy.

Mr. Chair, 80,000 nonpowered dams in the United States, just think about that. And the State I hail from and I am privileged to represent a portion of, Pennsylvania, has 678 megawatts of untapped hydropower right now.

Mr. Chairman, I would just urge all of our colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I, again, appreciate the chairmen of the committee and of the subcommittee for this opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the Appropriations Committee for the extraordinary work they have done in a very limited amount of time.

This amendment would prohibit the use of funds to implement or enforce the final rule published by the former Secretary of Energy, entitled: ``Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps.''

Mr. Chairman, this is simply an example of too much Washington, too much government. I am sure it was well-intended, but I am not sure if the good idea fairies in Washington really realized fully what they did.

Certainly we want to have test standards and so on and so forth, but the one-size-fits-all approach that comes out of Washington misses some folks and can cause some irreparable damage to businesses all around the country.

And all around the country there are small manufacturers that are trying to build some air-conditioners. In particular, there is one in the district that I represent that builds custom-made air-conditioners and heat pumps for skyscrapers and high-rise buildings.

If I can picture the scene, the original units are put in when the buildings are being constructed. So there are cranes available, there are openings in the walls and in the structure, and they just move the stuff in, and then they close it all up.

In 10, 15, 20, 30 years later when they go to replace it, well, the walls are in, the windows are in, the people are in, the offices are in. There is no crane available, and they have to piece this thing together through the elevator and into the closet. So this company, like other ones around the country, make custom-made ones, each one for a specific application--each one.

But the Department of Energy, and this rule in particular, says that this company must test each model that they make for these efficiency standards--each one--an arduous test taking months, if not years, in documentation for one application.

Again, I am sure the Department of Energy was well-intended. However, this rule is going to put a business out. They work in the city of York, a fine city in central Pennsylvania, right downtown where we want manufacturing to happen, where people can walk to work. These folks are trying. They are struggling to survive in this economy, and the only thing that is going to put them out is this regulation, Mr. Chairman.

While well-intended, it is not going to be helpful. These folks are trying to do the right thing, but the government is getting in the way.

Believe it or not, Consumer Reports actually recommended against buying some of these systems under this testing rule because the systems had higher costs and poor repair records.

Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, the free market actually fixes most of this stuff. Most of us want to buy more efficient things that are cheaper, that are easier to maintain, and have a better record. This is Consumer Reports talking. This isn't Perry's record. This is Consumer Reports talking.

Let us not put this company out of business. Let us not put these companies out of business. Let us be responsible. I urge passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement that the regulations have to be in place. I, too, like the yellow sticker, just like she does; and somehow the yellow stickers are in place without this new rule. They are there right now. You have been seeing them for years. This is new--this is a new regulation.

I would contend that, yeah, the manufacturers have gotten on board and they have negotiated this rule. Because what choice did they have, right?

The Federal Government is going to regulate. They are going to do it. You either get in the game and play ball or you know what happens to the bat. Right? They didn't want to be in that position, so they took the best they could.

I am telling you and it is my contention that the free market is going to figure this out because we all want the most efficient, the most cost-effective, and the most maintenance-effective, whether it is an air-conditioner, whether it is a car, or whether it is an electric toothbrush.

We don't need the Federal Government telling us to do it. By the way, this company has applied for a waiver, years in the making. They literally have the president of the company spending almost, he said, 85 percent of his time dealing with Federal regulation compliance.

The president of the company is the guy who wants to hire these 125 people, go make sales, and produce things. Instead, all he is doing is dealing with the Federal Government. Somehow, someway we all got to this point.

It feels pretty cool in the Capitol right now, right? It feels pretty cool in the House of Representatives.

The yellow labels were there before this regulation ever happened.

Mr. Chairman, I ask and urge the Members to vote in favor of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for his hard work and his defense of those who wear the uniform and take on that tough task. In these tough and troubling times, especially in financial austerity, he stood up and let everybody know how the military, in actual dollars over the last 8 years, has been cut significantly, and the impact on our national security.

In that vein, my goal with this amendment is to prioritize those limited defense resources on efforts that pose an immediate and direct threat to our national security.

This amendment would strike section 336 of the NDAA, which strikes the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the vulnerability to military installations and combatant commander requirements resulting from climate change over the next 20 years.

I am not here to debate climate change, whether it is real or it is not, how it is created, how we fix it, and all that stuff. That is for another day. My point is that this shouldn't be the priority of combatant commanders in our military. The United States military is currently operating in a very complex threat environment in which our country must be ready to face our adversaries.

Our country is facing direct threats from a myriad of sources, including Islamic extremists: ISIS, al-Qaida, the

Taliban, Abu Sayyaf. The alphabet soup of names in that regard is continuous and unrelenting: North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, even in space.

Over the past 8 years, our military strength and readiness has suffered as a result of the underfunding and neglect from the previous administration that are in support of sequestration. Through the NDAA, we simply must prioritize, decide what is most important and be for that, and let our warfighters know where we stand.

These things must strengthen the rebuilding of our Armed Forces and resolve their focus on what they need to pay attention to. Literally litanies of other Federal agencies deal with environmental issues, including climate change. This Federal mandate detracts from the essential mission of the Department of Defense, which is to secure our Nation from enemies, and is best left to the agencies that are better suited to deal with these issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the Secretary of Defense doesn't need Congress to tell him what the threats are. He knows what the threats are.

I can tell you as a person who has been privileged for over 30 years to wear the Nation's uniform--the Army, the military's uniform--and as a person who was privileged to lead troops in combat in the Middle East, I didn't need Congress to tell me who the enemy is or was. We know that. We also don't need Congress to tell us to report the issues that we might have in defending the Nation to the Congress or to the Commander.

We know our duty, and we will do our duty. If we have issues that need to be reported--whether it is sea level rise or the enemy has a new weapon or we can't feed our troops or what have you--we will report it, and we will resolve it. We don't need people in Washington, D.C., telling us how to run the war. That is our job. That is the military's job.

This amendment simply says that we ought to prioritize that. We ought to let them prioritize that. We ought to let combatant commanders--we ought to let the men and women who wear the uniform and defend our country focus on the enemy. If the enemy, indeed, is climate change, then they will focus on that as well, and they will submit information so that we can make decisions.

The point is, should somebody--should all of us in this uniform in Washington, D.C.--be telling the fine men and women in uniform across the globe defending our country that we know better? That is exactly what I am trying to avoid here.

Little by little, drip by drip, we have watched our Nation's and military's focus eroded--this and that. Believe me. I have filled out the reports. As an officer, I have filled out a whole bunch of reports on a regular basis that have nothing to do with completing the mission of securing our Nation and defeating the enemy--nothing to do with it. This is just one in the long line of them.

My only goal is to send this to where it needs to be--the agencies best adapted to deal with it and take it out of the agencies that shouldn't be dealing with it and should be dealing with securing our Nation and fighting the enemy.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank Mrs. Hartzler, my good friend, for offering this amendment.

Mr. Chair, we are $20 trillion in debt. Taxpayers, by my figures, are projected to pay $3.7 billion over the next 10 years for sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy for those in the military who wish to transition from one sex to another. The total cost includes the manpower lost while the individual transitions, which can take up to a year or longer, depending on complications.

Sex reassignment patients also require specialized medicine following the procedure. And I find that interesting, in the face of the fact I just had a young gentleman come to my office who wants to serve, but he can't serve, because he has got a peanut allergy. Right? He can't go downrange, because we can't have the medicine downrange, and that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, but we are going to spend $3.7 billion over the next 10 years on sex reassignment surgery as opposed to buying aircraft and body armor and the things that warfighters need to be successful in defending the Nation.

It is really just a priority issue. With limited defense resources and the current state of our Armed Forces, we must prioritize increasing our strength and readiness.

Mr. Speaker, today we remember the Battle of Gettysburg, a clear turning point in our American history. I'm privileged and humbled to represent these hallowed grounds. This weekend, we commemorate the 154th Anniversary of the Battle--one that pit brother against brother, neighbor against neighbor, for three days of horrific and abject combat--not for hatred, but rather unbridled passion and loyalty to their respective causes; a loyalty that drove these Soldiers to give, in President Lincoln's words, ``the last full measure of devotion.''

Everything our Nation has achieved since that time--the expansion of freedom and liberty, civil rights, and centuries of human achievements--was borne of the sacrifice and struggle of the Soldiers who valiantly fought this Battle.

Beginning in 1888, Veterans from both sides of the conflict held reunions in Gettysburg to celebrate our unity and hopes for the future. The reunions would culminate with the lighting of the Eternal Light Peace Memorial in July 1938, the 75th Anniversary of the Battle, and the final Veteran's reunion. In the years since, millions of people from all over the world annually travel to Gettysburg to learn about our Nation's ``new birth of freedom,'' and the National Park Service and an array of dedicated citizens and partners perform the critical work of inspiring us to learn and appreciate the significance of the Gettysburg Campaign, the Gettysburg Address and the Civil War.

On this 154th Anniversary, may God continue to bless the brave men and women who served and sacrificed at the Battle of Gettysburg. And may He rededicate us to ``...the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for making sure this bill gets to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am registering my support for Kate's Law and H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals--for Criminals--Act. I support these bills for the sake of Kate Steinle and every single one of those who share her tragic fate.

She was murdered in broad daylight by a violent, criminal illegal alien. This was an easily preventable and heartbreaking crime, and we simply cannot fail the American people by refusing to act on these bills.

The government's first responsibility is the security and protection of our homeland, a duty that should not be abdicated or yielded based on convenience.

In 2011--2011--a GAO study found that aliens committed more than 25,000 homicides, more than 69,000 sexual offenses, 14,000 kidnappings, 42,000 robberies, and 213,000 assaults, among other offenses. Every single one of these is too many.

Very few things in this world we can get at 100 percent, but these are 100 percent preventable if these people would not have been here. These are preventable crimes, completely preventable, and we must stop the willful neglect of complacency by government officials who refuse to enforce existing--this is not new. This is existing law we are asking them to enforce, we are requiring them to enforce.

According to a March 2017 Washington Times article, nearly 500 jurisdictions have sanctuary policies that block--that block--that limit ICE from apprehending criminal aliens.

A January 2017 article from the Washington Examiner reported that, from January 2014 to September 2015, sanctuary jurisdictions rejected 17,000 ICE detainers. Those are 17,000 criminals that are out on the street that we know about that we let go.

Adding insult to injury, these sanctuary jurisdictions seek Federal funds to help them defy Federal law enforcement efforts to remove the dangerous criminal aliens from the streets.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to put Americans first, and we support the restoration of law and order by supporting these proposals.

Mr. Speaker, today I proudly honor my constituents, the Central York High School Boys Volleyball Team, on earning the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) Class AAA championship. These young men have brought home our seventh PIAA State Championship.

The State Championship capped a phenomenal year for the Panthers, which included a York-Adams League title, District 3 AAA crown and state gold medal.

The Panthers team has an army of loyal supporters. I extend my congratulations to head coach, Todd Goodling, and the school officials, family and friends that supported our young men on this incredible journey. On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I commend and congratulate the Central York High School Boys Volleyball Team on earning the 2017 State Championship. Their work ethic and commitment to excellence sets the standard for all others to follow.

Mr. Speaker, today I offer my sincere congratulations to my constituent, William Bryan Fish, on earning. the Boy Scouts of America William T. Hornaday Silver Medal, its highest honor given for conservation work.

Described by the Boy Scouts as the ``Olympic Medal Bestowed by the Earth,'' this award recognizes truly outstanding efforts by Scouts that have contributed to environmental protection and conservation. Mr. Fish is one of only 1,200 Scouts to have earned this award since it was created in 1914.

To earn this award, Mr. Fish: installed hundreds of storm drain markers and information packets advising of the dangers of polluting waterways that connect to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; organized an even-sided public debate on hydraulic fracking; cleaned up two miles of a local creek; and organized a battery recycling program for his local school district.

Mr. Fish's character, perseverance and leadership earned this Award and mark him as a future leader in our community and sets the standard for others to follow.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth-Congressional District, I congratulate William Bryan Fish on earning the Boy Scouts of America William T. Hornaday Silver Medal, and wish him continued great success in his future adventures.

Mr. Speaker, I was unexpectedly detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 316, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 317.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, today I offer my sincere congratulations to my constituent, Lieutenant Steve Shissler, on his upcoming retirement after more than 26 years of service to the Hampden Township Police Department in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.

Lt. Shissler climbed the ranks of the Hampden Township Police Department, starting as a patrolman, then to Corporal, Sergeant and, ultimately, Lieutenant. He has been in charge of the Department's Criminal Investigation Division for the last several years.

Lt. Shissler's tireless dedication, professionalism and sacrifice has touched the lives of countless people and challenged all with whom he served to be the best. His legacy of service to our community truly is admirable.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I thank and congratulate Steve Shissler on his service to our Nation and wish him and his family continued great success in their future adventures.

Mr. Speaker, today I proudly honor the Gettysburg College Women's Lacrosse Team on earning the NCAA Division III Women's Lacrosse Championship. The Gettysburg College Bullets earned a 6-5 victory over top-ranked The College of New Jersey to earn its second National Championship.

With a record of 21-3, Gettysburg College tied the program record for most victories in a season, and eclipsed the program and conference record for goals against average at 4.79. The Bullets also defeated two number one teams this season for the first time in program history. Their accomplishments have earned the respect of their peers as the Bullets earned the top spot in the final Intercollegiate Women's Lacrosse Coaches Association Division III Coaches' Poll.

I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Head Coach Carol Cantele and the school officials, family and friends that supported these young women on their incredible and impressive journey.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I commend and congratulate the Gettysburg College Women's Lacrosse Team on earning the NCAA Division III Women's Lacrosse Championship. Their work ethic and commitment to excellence serve as the standard for all to follow.

Mr. Speaker, today I offer my sincere congratulations to my constituent, William Petite, on his upcoming retirement after more than 11 years of federal civilian service and 6 years of military service.

Mr. Petite began his service to our Nation in 1969, when he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps to serve in the Vietnam War, during which he earned, among other decorations, the Purple Heart. He later enlisted in the U.S. Army and served as a Non-Commissioned Officer on armored vehicles until his discharge in 1981.

Mr. Petite later began working with tracked vehicles as a mechanic, supervisor, and in quality control with Boeing. He subsequently worked with Northrop-Grumman and Letterkenny Army Depot until 2009, when he accepted a position as a Quality Assurance Specialist with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) working out of BAE in York, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Petite's workload focused on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle ACAT-1 program; specifically, he aided in the initial development and updates to the Bradley program surveillance plan. His colleagues describe him as a dedicated, persistent, and outstanding leader who took great pride in supporting the customer, the Warfighter, and contributing to the defense of our Nation.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I thank and congratulate William Petite on his service to our Nation and wish his family continued great success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, today I offer my sincere congratulations to Harrisburg High School on the 25th Anniversary of its School of Business and Industry (SBI) Honors Prep Program.

In 1991, the Harrisburg School District entered into a partnership with Florida A&M University to incorporate a School of Business & Industry Prep School Program into the Harrisburg High Campus curriculum. The goal of the SBI Program is to orient potentially high achieving scholars to the world of business and industry and enhance their critical thinking, listening and communication skills.

SBI is a three-year accelerated honors program and has proven to build leadership skills and self-esteem, strengthen scholars' preparation for college and the career world, and empower them to become entrepreneurs.

On behalf of Pennsylvania's Fourth Congressional District, I thank and congratulate all involved--past and present--with the SBI Honors Prep Program at Harrisburg High School on their 25th Anniversary and wish them continued great success in the years to come.