Hank Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 3438, the Require Evaluation Before Implementing Executive Wishlists Act of 2016, also known as the REVIEW Act, which would automatically stay so-called high-impact rules that a party challenges by filing suit in court. Now, this is a very arcane and esoteric subject that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will literally put you to sleep listening to their arguments about it. But make no mistake about it, this is a very important piece of legislation that would torpedo the good work of legislators who are trying to protect the health, safety, and well- being of the American people. Simply put, this bill is yet another reckless measure designed to delay the implementation of the most important rules protecting the health, safety, and financial well-being of everyday people. Passage of this bill will only benefit the pocketbooks of the large corporations in the top 1 percent while the American people will be left unprotected from corporate greed. Other than satisfying the insatiable thirst of the superwealthy for more and more and more profits to stuff into their already fat and overflowing pockets, this bill is completely unnecessary and is not in the best interest of the greater good. Under current law, both courts and the agency issuing a rule may stay the effective date of a final rule. While agencies have broad discretion in postponing the effective date of a rule, a court considers several factors in deciding whether to stay a rule, including whether the party is likely to succeed on the merits. In 2009, the Supreme Court, in Nken v. Holder, instructed courts to consider four factors when deciding whether to issue a stay: One, whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; two, whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; three, whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings; and, four, where the public interest lies. The REVIEW Act would discard this very flexible and practical test in favor of an inflexible and unyielding requirement that agencies automatically delay the effective date of any rule exceeding $1 billion in costs that is challenged in court regardless of whether the party challenging the rule has any likelihood of success on the merits, is actually harmed by the rule, or whether staying the rule would be contrary to the public interest. It is virtually guaranteed that every high-impact rule would be delayed through litigation challenges, regardless of whether the litigation is meritorious. Frivolous litigation would almost certainly create years of delays for these rules which, in many cases, have already taken years to promulgate. But the bill wouldn't just simply apply to lifesaving rules that exceed $1 billion in costs that keep our air clean and our children safe. Rather, it would likely apply to transfer rules which involve the transfer of funds for budgetary programs authorized by Congress, such as transfer rules involving the Medicare program or the Federal Pell Grant Program, as the Office of Management and Budget has clarified. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill because it is a dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem. Any party affected by a final agency action may challenge that action in court while agencies may also delay the effective date of rules on a discretionary basis. Professor William Funk, a leading administrative law expert, explains that existing law ``weeds out frivolous claims and takes account of both the cost of the rule and the benefits of the rule that would be avoided by granting the stay.'' Absent any evidence whatsoever that courts have inappropriately refused to grant stays, I am confident that existing law provides adequate protection. In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and make in order any of the amendments that you will hear hereafter.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding. The majority argues that H.R. 3438 responds to cases where a court vacates a rule after it has already gone into effect. The majority argues that H.R. 3438 responds to the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Michigan v. EPA, where the Court remanded a clean air rule adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce power plants' emissions of hazardous air pollutants. As leading administrator and law professor William Funk has noted, the Court remanded the rule rather than vacating it altogether because the ``grounds upon which the Supreme Court found the rule invalid appear to be easily remedied.'' He further observes that delaying this rule would cost the U.S. economy $20- to $80 billion per year. Importantly, the industry and State challengers to the EPA's rule at issue in Michigan v. EPA did not seek judicial stay of the rule prior to the Court's remand. Perhaps that is because they knew it would fail and that they could not meet the judicial test requiring showings of irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits. These challengers are hardly in a good position to complain now about the rule being found unlawful in one respect but not unlawful with respect to every other issue raised by the challengers when they themselves even failed to ask the Court to stay the rule beforehand. Furthermore, notwithstanding the majority's misleading claims that this rule caused irreparable harm and cost billions of dollars to implement while only offering potential benefits in the millions of dollars, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which is the same entity that would be charged with conducting cost estimates under the bill, states that annual benefits of the rule range between $30- and $90 billion, very much dwarfing its annual cost of $9.6 billion.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the last speaker spoke about how the banks, Wall Street banks, are able to get a break from the executive branch when they pay out these settlements, but those are matters of legislative action that has been passed by this Congress which coddles the banks and puts them in a position where they just simply can't lose. When it comes to these fines, as they call it, these are not fines. These are settlement amounts that are going to help the victims. They are not going to play politics anywhere. These are funds that are directed to entities which help the victims of the Wall Street excesses. So I want to make that clear. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016, H.R. 5063, would remove an important civil enforcement tool available to agencies to hold corporations accountable for the general harm caused by unlawful conduct. H.R. 5063 would have potentially disastrous, unintended consequences on the remediation of generalized harms in civil enforcement actions like the one that the chairman just noted at the very beginning of his speech. He talked about mortgage lending settlements that the Department of Justice had obtained after filing suit in court against Wall Street bankers who took billions of dollars in equity, home equity, from Americans throughout the country by way of predatory lending instruments, which blew up in their faces; caused the Wall Street meltdown. Wall Street got bailed out. The American people who had these mortgages that then were underwater lost their homes, so the Department of Justice sued, and this is what this legislation seeks to get at. My friends on the other side of the aisle don't want the common people of this country to have the protection of government. They want a government that is hands off; let the private sector, let the free market work its will. No rules. Whatever will be will be. The bottom line is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; and this legislation would work to enforce that economic philosophy that is held so dear by my friends on the other side of the aisle. So these mortgage lending settlements, the DOJ sued the big banks. The big banks came to the table and decided to settle. As a result of the settlement, there were directives that were agreed to by the Wall Street banks, that they would give money to certified HUD counseling agencies. Those agencies have done a good job of helping people who have not lost their homes continue to stay in their homes, to get their mortgages refinanced, to get their situation in order, to give them the ability to hold on to their homes after they had lost their jobs and were unable to pay the mortgage for a number of months. These housing counseling agencies were able to be effective at keeping people in their homes, but my friends on the other side of the aisle, they don't want to have any part of that because it is costing their friends on Wall Street money. This same settlement that the chairman excoriated in his presentation just a minute ago, it gave money to State-based legal aid firms that were about helping people to avoid foreclosure, helping the very people that these banks stole from and hurt. So this is what they want to stop, and they cloak it in the--they say that Congress should be the one to appropriate money, and that is true. There is nothing about Article I, the legislative branch, Congress, that is a part of the lawsuit that the Justice Department, an Article II body, would file in a Federal court, an Article III court, that results in a settlement. There is no legislative implication in that whatsoever. There is no appropriations from the legislature. What it is is a court-enforced transfer of the very wealth that was stolen from the people, back to the people, by way of these agencies, which my colleague refers to as activist, third-party entities. Well, these are third-party entities that are acting on behalf of the very people who have been harmed. What this legislation seeks to do is to take away the ability of the Justice Department to obtain a settlement to help people who have been harmed, and then would force the money to come into the hands of the legislative branch so that the legislative branch could then appropriate it. And we know that this legislative branch controlled by the other side of the aisle is not interested in helping people who lost their homes due to Wall Street fraud. So that is what this legislation is all about, and it comes at a time when we have people who are afflicted with the Zika virus. We can't even pass legislation in this Chamber that would get at that public health emergency, which is right here on our doorstep where it is in the House now. This is an emergency. We have almost 2,000 babies born having been afflicted with the Zika virus. It's going to take $10 million for the remainder of their lives, average, to take care of them. That is $2 billion right there. The President has come to us, months ago, requesting $1.9 billion-- less than the $2 billion--to fund operations to get at this Zika virus, to prevent it from taking hold, and we can't even pass it in this Congress because we are too busy passing bills to help Wall Street. That is not what the American people want. That is not what the American people need. I ask my colleagues to vote against this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, with increased opportunities for private organizations to obtain, maintain, and disseminate sensitive private information of citizens, it is critical that we not prevent or delay enforcement of consumer protection laws designed to protect Americans' privacy rights. As Professor David Uhlmann of Michigan Law noted during the hearing on H.R. 5063, this measure ``fails to adequately address the fact that generalized harm arises in civil cases,'' including cases brought under consumer protection laws under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. H.R. 5063 only exempts payments to parties other than the government to provide restitution for actual harm ``directly and proximately caused by the party making the payment.'' Congress has expressly granted authority to the Federal Trade Commission, however, to resolve complaints against corporations for unfair or deceptive acts or practices under section 5 of the FTC Act. As part of resolving potential civil liability of corporations for unlawful conduct, FTC settlement agreements typically require parties to address generalized harms of unlawful conduct by adopting a privacy program, employee training and monitoring requirements, third-party auditing, regular testing of privacy controls and procedures, and other reasonable steps to maintain security practices consistent with the underlying settlement. The protection of Americans' privacy is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. Indeed, it is one of the few that those across the political spectrum have long embraced, including my friends on the other side of the aisle. Yet, notwithstanding these shared concerns, this bill could impose burdensome requirements on settlement agreements that are intended to protect privacy. I voice my support for the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the ability of the prevailing party to receive reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in connection with a settlement agreement. Where citizens, through a private enforcement action, hold the government or a private party accountable, Congress has authorized payments for reasonable attorneys' fees. Bringing meritorious claims to hold corporate wrongdoing accountable is often time consuming and expensive. In many cases, Congress has already authorized reasonable attorneys' fees specifically to encourage these types of lawsuits to ensure a level playing field and an accessible justice system. This amendment would limit these fees to outdated rates--$125 an hour; that is ridiculous--and that will discourage citizens from bringing these important lawsuits. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I just can't believe what I heard the gentleman from Virginia say about the big banks being coddled by the Justice Department, being given a break. So he is complaining that the big banks are being given a break, but then the purpose of this legislation is to take the big banks off of the hook. It is ironic. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Even though the Senate may take up this ill-fated measure, the President has promised to veto it. So what we are doing here today is another messaging bill that distracts the American people perhaps from the more important issues of the day, such as the spreading of this public health crisis, the Zika virus, which is afflicting almost 17,000 Americans infected by mosquitos carrying the Zika virus--17,000 people--200 babies born, 1,600 infected women. This is a crisis that is going to cost the American people from a public health perspective. It is going to cost the lives of the unborn whose mothers are afflicted with this virus, giving birth to them, and they have the virus and suffer from microcephaly, a shrunken head and brain which renders them severely developmentally impacted as they make it through life and add a severe burden to the taxpayers. Instead of dealing with this issue, we took a 7-week vacation and refused to come back to work to deal with the Zika virus. At the same time as we have got the Zika virus, a public health issue afflicting the Nation, we are also seeing more and more and more people dying from opioid abuse in this country. This Congress has been insufficient in dealing with this, applying the resources to deal with that issue. We have got the issue of Flint, Michigan, where lead was found in the water. This Congress has done absolutely nothing to address the financial implications of that and what we can do to help remediate it and to keep it from happening. Now we get East Chicago, Indiana, with people living atop a lead dump, basically, thousands of people impacted, and this Congress will do nothing. That is not to mention anything about the other public health problem that afflicts the Nation, and that is the ongoing gun violence issue, which this Congress will do nothing about other than to hold a hearing on this coming Friday to censure those of us who had the gall to sit in the well of this House Chamber to demand that this body take some action. What did the body do back then? It adjourned for 7 weeks. This is a spectacle that the American people are looking at. You can't help but to see it. You can't help but to understand it. The American people are being adversely impacted by the policies of my friends on the other side of the aisle. They have caught a bad case of the Trump syndrome, the Trump syndrome which causes people to forget about the truth, forget about reality, start seeing things the way that they want to see them, and they don't care what impact it has on the American people. All they want to do is be able to retain their positions, although they say that they hate government, they want to be here so that they can shrink government, make it smaller, leave everything to the private sector, and leave the American people fending for themselves. We have had that happening for much too long. That is what the American people are so angry about on both sides of the aisle. That is why the mainstream portion of the other side of the aisle has completely lost control of their apparatus. We have the Trump syndrome that has taken hold, and this body is sick because it is being led by folks who have fallen victim to the Trump syndrome. Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of it. With respect to Congress appropriating funds, this Congress still has to pass a budget. But you are talking about dealing with what is called a slush fund, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016. They say that Congress should be the one to allocate resources; it shouldn't come out of a settlement. Well, the fact is that there are no public dollars coming to fruition in a settlement between a big bank and the Justice Department. Those are all privately held funds that are being disgorged from the wrongdoer and placed back in the service of the very people that were harmed by the wrongdoing of the big banks. There is no legislative appropriation there because there is no public money. It is private money, but it is being redirected to those from whom it was wrongfully taken. That is what makes this legislation so hurtful to the process. I would ask my colleagues to, again, be in opposition to it. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), my chairman--or my ranking member. I say ``chairman'' in a very hopeful way.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans shot out of here like mice when you cut the lights on; so busy to get to their convention, their Titanic convention in Cleveland, where they will nominate Donald Trump to be their next President, all the while, leaving the people of Flint, Michigan, up the river without a paddle. Then, on top of that, to take no action on funding Zika and to pass a bill, but no funding, is like sending soldiers into war without a weapon or, worse yet, sending them to war with a gun that they didn't know didn't have any bullets in it. It is really criminal that my friends from the other side of the aisle would leave America in the lurch, leaving us only 17 legislative days when we return in 7 weeks to do the work of the people, only 17 days left before the lameduck session. And, really, I believe that this Congress has been operating as a lameduck since it began.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, power companies are closing coal-fired power plants as we move toward cleaner, more sustainable ways to generate electricity. A material known as coal ash is a byproduct of this industry. Coal ash contains carcinogens, known carcinogens, such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. The EPA is now regulating coal ash with its final rule on the disposal of coal combustion residuals from electric utilities. Many of the neighborhoods already exposed to dangerous levels of coal ash are in predominantly low-income and minority communities. The problem of low-income and minority communities being disproportionately exposed to chemicals, hazardous waste, and toxic materials is neither new nor confined to one area of the country. More than 134 million Americans--their homes, schools, businesses, parks, and places of worship--are in harm's way from dangerous exposure to coal ash. A 2014 study found that residents in vulnerable zones are disproportionately African American or Latino, have higher rates of poverty than the U.S. as a whole, and have lower housing values, incomes, and education levels. The poverty rate in these zones is 50 percent higher than the national average. The percentage of Blacks is 75 percent greater than for the U.S. as a whole, while the percentage of Latinos is 60 percent greater. This means that almost half of the people more likely to suffer from exposure are Black or Latino. But make no mistake, Madam Chair, coal ash poisoning is not racially discriminatory. Rural White communities throughout north Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are suffering from exposure to coal ash dumping, leaking coal ash ponds, and coal ash dust from coal ash transport. We cannot allow people across the country to fall between the regulatory cracks simply because they live in a certain neighborhood or have certain income levels. This amendment requires implementation of the EPA's coal ash rule to be consistent with Executive Order No. 12898. That executive order's purpose was to focus Federal attention on the environmental and public health effects that Federal regulations have on minority and low-income communities. More coal ash is expected to be dumped in the State of Georgia. In Jesup, Georgia, a landfill has agreed to accept over 10,000 tons of coal ash per day. Duke Energy is moving their coal ash from North Carolina to a landfill in Banks County, Georgia. Elsewhere within Georgia, communities have been exposed to contaminated drinking water by existing coal ash facilities. Last month, arsenic, beryllium, and selenium were found in the groundwater of various coal ash sites in the State. As we saw in Flint, we need to act at the Federal level before our failure to do so results in irreversible damage to the health and to the environment of the communities we represent. American families, regardless of income level, should not be unfairly and unreasonably exposed to toxic chemicals. I ask for support for my amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in sum, it is indeed ironic that the so-called Separation of Powers Restoration Act actually raises separation of powers concerns by yielding legislative power over to the judicial branch. This is, in part, why there are so many alliances of labor organizations, consumer organizations, environmental action organizations, and others that strongly oppose this legislation. I include in the Record a July 11, 2016, letter from Consumers Union opposing this legislation, along with a letter from the Natural Resources Defense Council opposing this legislation. ConsumersUnion, July 11, 2016. Dear Representative: ConsumersUnion, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, urges you to oppose H.R. 4768 when it comes to the floor. Although titled the ``Separation of Powers Restoration Act,'' we are concerned that the bill would have the opposite effect, upending the well-developed constitutional balance between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The bill could severely impair effective and well-considered regulatory agency enforcement of critical safety, health, environmental, and market protections on which consumers depend. Courts giving appropriate deference to reasonable agency interpretations of their statutes, as reflected in Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), is a well-settled approach to promote both sound and efficient agency enforcement and effective judicial review. This approach has legal roots going back decades, even to the earliest days of our nation. The courts have full judicial power to review agency legal interpretations. The Chevron doctrine embodies a judicial recognition, based on experience, that courts do not need to exercise this judicial power de novo on each and every question of law that comes before them. The courts are in no way precluded from doing so when that is warranted. The agency must give a reasoned explanation for its judgment, but Chevron says the court should not simply substitute its judgment for the agency's. The Chevron doctrine recognizes that, as a general matter, an agency that deals with a statute day in and day out, year in and year out--applying the dedicated efforts and sustained attention of agency personnel with specialized subject matter expertise in all relevant disciplines, and with input from stakeholders and members of the public, received and considered in open rulemakings--develops valuable insight into the law it is entrusted with administering. Chevron recognizes that this insight generally warrants the respect and deference of the reviewing courts of general jurisdiction, which have no such resources, dedicated personnel, specialized expertise, or sustained attention over time. Again, in situations where the court has sufficient basis to conclude that deference is not warranted, it has full authority to not defer. Likewise, if Congress determines that the agency has acted in a manner inconsistent with congressional intent--or if Congress decides to clarify or even change its intent in light of some agency action-- Congress can amend the statute and provide a clearer directive. But Congress cannot realistically be expected to clearly address in advance every conceivable contingency that may arise in the administration and enforcement of the statutes it enacts. The agencies that are specifically tasked with administering and enforcing those statutes are in the best position to ensure that the law functions effectively. Indeed, that has traditionally been regarded as their foremost responsibility--to help the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 133 S. Ct. 1863, 1874 (2013), the Supreme Court starkly described the alternative to Chevron: ``Thirteen Courts of Appeals applying a totality- of-the-circumstances test would render the binding effect of agency rules unpredictable and destroy the whole stabilizing purpose of Chevron. The excessive agency power that the dissent fears would be replaced by chaos.'' In addition to injecting this unpredictability into every agency decision, and increasing the complexity of every rulemaking, the change proposed by this legislation would add needless new burdens to our already overworked courts, impeding their important work as well. In sum, this legislation is unnecessary, could do severe damage to the proper functioning of our government, and could severely weaken a wide range of fundamental protections on which consumers rely. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose this bill. Respectfully, George P. Slover, Senior Policy Counsel, ConsumersUnion.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Lastly, I would point out that there is a strongly worded veto threat by the President about this legislation should it ever find its way to the Senate and to the President's desk. The President points out that this legislation is not in the public interest and that it would add needless complexity and delay to the judicial review of regulatory actions. For those reasons, among other things, he has issued a veto threat. So this is a piece of legislation that is a messaging piece. My friends on the other side of the aisle know that it is not going anywhere, but it is promoting their message, which is deregulation. Despite all of the regulation and legislation needed to address pertinent issues that the American people are demanding action on right now--the Zika virus, Puerto Rico, gun violence, and gun reform legislation--there are so many other things that we could and should be working on, but instead we are enthralled here with these messaging bills that are not going anywhere. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I offer an amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, the Conyers amendment would exempt from H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016, regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency that protect drinking water from lead and copper contamination. The Conyers amendment does not address a hypothetical concern. The recent lead-contaminated water crisis that occurred in Flint, Michigan, is only the latest in a history of cases of contaminated drinking water. Without question, the Flint crisis was a preventable public health disaster. The lead contamination occurred because an unelected and unaccountable emergency manager decided to switch the city's water source to the Flint River without there being the benefit of proper corrosion control. As a result, corrosive water leached highly toxic lead from residents' water pipes, exposing thousands of children to lead, which, in turn, can cause permanent developmental damage. While much of the blame for the Flint water crisis rests with unelected bureaucrats who prioritized saving money over saving lives, the presence of lead in drinking water is not unique to Flint. The drinking water of potentially millions of Americans may be contaminated by lead. In fact, just last month, elevated lead levels were detected in the drinking water supplied to the Cannon House Office Building right here on Capitol Hill. It is a commonsense amendment, and it is common sense that urgent rulemakings, such as the EPA's proposed revisions to its Lead and Copper Rule, must not be impeded or delayed by measures such as H.R. 4768. Even before the Flint water crisis, the Agency had begun the process of updating this Rule, which was originally promulgated in 1991 after years of analysis. Rather than hastening this rulemaking, however, H.R. 4768 would have the opposite effect. The bill would empower well-funded business interests to seek the judicial review of any regulation they opposed by a generalist, politically unaccountable court that lacks the requisite scientific or technical knowledge. The court could then make its own, independent determination based on its nonexpert views and limited information as to whether the Agency's proposed regulation is warranted. The Conyers amendment simply preserves longstanding legal doctrine in cases involving the review of regulations that are designed to prevent the contamination of drinking water by lead and copper. It is critical that Americans have access to safe drinking water, and we must not hinder the ability of Federal agencies, such as the EPA, to prevent future lead contamination crises, as occurred in Flint. Federal judges, who are constitutionally insulated from political accountability, should not have the power to second-guess the Agency's experts concerning the appropriateness of highly technical regulations that are crucial to protecting the health and safety of millions of Americans. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who has an amendment at the desk.