Bill Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mrs. Brooks from Indiana, for hosting this Special Order this evening to talk about this very important topic, and I am really proud to join all of our colleagues tonight to talk about the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I want to focus my comments on the good news coming out of eastern and southeastern Ohio as a result of these historic tax reforms. Just last week, we celebrated the 6-month anniversary of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act being signed into law. In just these few months, we have seen consumer, business, and manufacturing confidence at or near record levels, more money back into the pockets of hardworking Americans, and unemployment rates at some of the lowest levels we have seen in nearly two decades. In the Sixth District of Ohio, since the start of 2017, unemployment rates have dropped significantly in each of the 18 counties I represent. Now, we know there is still more work to do, but the trends are moving in a positive direction. Many of our friends on the other side of the aisle said the sky would fall when we passed this landmark legislation but, in fact, the opposite has happened. Just last week, one of my constituents from Marietta, Ohio, stopped by my office to tell me he is receiving an additional $80 each week in his paycheck due to tax reform. That is an additional $320 per month, or $3,840 per year. That is even more than the average of what we thought was going to happen for hardworking families. He said he uses this money to help pay his car payments, and he expressed his gratitude for that extra money he has in his pocket to help him make those payments. I hear these stories every day when I travel my home district in eastern and southeastern Ohio, and I can tell you firsthand, we are still seeing the benefits from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and we will for a long time to come. The results are real, and it is encouraging to see what happens when we refuse to accept the previous administration's slow-growth economic policies as some kind of new normal. There is no doubt: The hardworking men and women of eastern and southeastern Ohio are optimistic about the positive economic growth under our new Tax Code, but they are not the only ones. This positive outlook is happening all over America. You know, it is about time that Washington creates an environment where our free enterprise, market-driven system puts money into the American people's pocket rather than Washington standing there with its hand out taking money out of their pockets, and that is just what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Representative Pete Olson, for partnering with me to colead this Special Order tonight on the benefits of natural gas and liquified natural gas exports, especially as the United States prepares to hold the World Gas Conference next week. I am honored to share this floor time with Mr. Olson to talk about this very important topic, and I also want to thank many of my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee for participating in this Special Order tonight to talk about this important topic. I represent rural eastern and southeastern Ohio, which is no stranger to the benefits of natural gas. My district sits on top of, as Representative Olson just mentioned, the Utica and the Marcellus shale plays, which have led to a growing interest in new and exciting manufacturing opportunities like ethane cracker plants and ethane storage opportunities. In fact, one recent report led by Shale Crescent USA and IHS Markit forecasts that this region will supply 37 percent of the Nation's natural gas production by 2040. This same report forecasts that natural gas liquid production from these two plays will increase from 0.53 million barrels per day in 2017 to 1.37 million barrels per day in 2040, an increase of over 150 percent. Other studies predict that the region has sufficient ethane feedstock to support up to five ethane cracker plants. These opportunities are huge. These are massive construction projects, putting upwards of 10,000 construction workers to work over a 6-year period, with upwards of 1,000 permanent employees once those plants go operational. Additionally, ethylene projects within the region will have a comparative advantage because of the access to ample supplies of locally produced, low-cost ethane and because of the fact that the region is in close proximity to over two-thirds of U.S. polyethylene consumption. And that is only half the story. The economic and geopolitical benefits of exporting our excess gas are equally exciting as these benefits are helping to encourage oil and gas activity throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. As you will hear from multiple colleagues tonight, the U.S. is now the world's leading producer of oil and natural gas, and we are projected to become a net energy exporter by 2026. Natural gas production is at an all-time high, and reserves are so large that they are predicted to meet domestic demand for almost a century. Ohio alone reached new heights in October of 2017 as natural gas production reached 5.5 billion cubic feet per day. Simply put, we must do everything we can to take complete advantage of this abundance, and that includes LNG exports. However, the window of opportunity for American LNG exports will not remain open indefinitely. The U.S. is in fierce competition with other LNG-exporting nations, and if America misses our opportunity to get into these international markets in a big way, our share of the global gas market could be greatly reduced. Subsequently, opportunities to support our national security and strengthen the energy security of our allies through American LNG will diminish as well. So we must continue to elevate and promote the United States as a reliable source of natural gas onto the world market, which will diversify our friends' and allies' energy sources, greatly reduce their vulnerability to a single monopolistic supplier, and change the conversation at the table with the likes of Russia's Vladimir Putin. Additionally, studies have found that LNG exports support thousands of American jobs, many of them within manufacturing. ICF International, Inc., estimates that these jobs will occur across the entire value chain, translating into millions of dollars in new wages for American workers. In fact, the Department of Energy once again highlighted the benefits of LNG exports with a study it released just this past week. This study, which is in addition to four other studies commissioned by DOE since 2012, presented data that demonstrates just how LNG exports are a net benefit to our economy. Additionally, these exports increase our GDP. They lower the trade deficit. And it is for those reasons, these reasons, that I have led the effort to ensure the U.S. does all it can to take advantage of our ability to export natural gas. Most recently, the Energy and Commerce Committee passed H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, out of committee in a bipartisan fashion. I was proud to author this bill, which seeks to codify the Department of Energy's recent efforts to encourage exports of small volumes of natural gas. There is a significant interest in potential for U.S. natural gas in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, although not in the quantities that the current large-scale domestic exporting facilities were built to address via conventional liquefied natural gas tankers. H.R. 4606 will help the U.S. to act on these interests through greater regulatory certainty and a reduction in administrative regulatory burdens. Now, when I first came to Congress in 2011, I worked hard to advance the idea that energy independence and security are the next great frontiers for America. Today, energy independence and security have been replaced by a new concept. Mr. Speaker, you have heard Representative Olson mention it, and you have heard Chairman Walden mention it. It is called energy dominance; and with it, all the global economic and geopolitical implications that come with being the king of the energy hill. Such an energy vision that harnesses America's innovative exceptionalism will lead to new discoveries and technologies around domestic energy production, storage, distribution, and usage; and will lead us to greater economic prosperity and job growth. I am excited to help further that vision which includes natural gas and LNG exports. I am excited for all the great opportunities that lie ahead for our country, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on those benefits tonight.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas mentioned it; Chairman Walden mentioned it; Mr. Barton mentioned it. We should be celebrating, and that is what we are doing here tonight. All America should be celebrating the good fortune that we have to be blessed with such an abundance of natural gas. In my home State of Ohio, and many other areas in the Midwest and Appalachia, the production of natural gas and its valuable liquid byproducts is providing a much-needed boost to our local economies. Let me give you some figures. From 2011 to the end of May 2018, we had drops in unemployment in the counties that comprise my 18-county district by more than 48 percent. Some of those counties, especially the ones that have the heavy shale plays, have seen drops of unemployment upward of 60 percent. It is unbelievable. In addition to the direct benefits, the natural gas industry also supports hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs across the country and supplies our industries with a reliable and affordable source of domestic energy. Next week, as thousands of visitors and dignitaries from around the world arrive here in D.C. to attend the World Gas Conference, we should reflect on our country's energy dominance--you have heard that term several times--and how that affects our standing on the world stage. According to the Energy Information Administration, the United States has remained the world's top producer of natural gas ever since 2009, when we surpassed Russia in production levels. Additionally, last year, we set a record in natural gas production, with gross withdrawals reaching almost 91 billion cubic feet per day. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, this is a big deal for America. It is charting the way for a new future of energy dominance and leverage not only in the economic energy markets, but also on the international stage. So there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic about where America is going on the energy front because of natural gas.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's healthcare providers are in a unique position to recognize and start to address a patient suffering from addiction. It is vital that their training fully equips them to play that very important role. Currently, fewer than 10 percent of U.S. medical schools require a dedicated course on addiction, and only a handful have a robust curriculum on the diagnosis and treatment of substance use disorder. The TEACH to Combat Addiction Act seeks to increase the amount of education health professional students receive specific to substance use disorder and addiction by recognizing and supporting institutions that focus on these areas and holding them up as a model for other programs. I know from talking with schools in Ohio like the University of Cincinnati and The Ohio State University that the medical education community is eager to be a part of the solution to the opioid crisis. This legislation gives them the additional tools with which to pursue innovative strategies and community partnerships that advance their students' knowledge and understanding of substance use disorder and addiction. Mr. Speaker, the work we are doing in this House to combat the opioid epidemic is important. Too many of our families, friends, and neighbors have been lost for us to delay any longer. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, my amendment calls on the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop hospice care standards tailored to the unique needs of Vietnam-era combat veterans. As Vietnam veterans grow older, it is imperative that the VA has clear standards in place to care for this group and future veteran populations. By the VA's own estimate, there are approximately 6.5 million Vietnam veterans. These veterans have unique medical and psychological needs which must be identified and addressed, including lethal diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure and a high prevalence of post- traumatic stress disorder, depression, and substance abuse. As part of the fiscal year 2018 MILCON-VA Appropriations, Congress directed the VA to submit a report identifying the unique challenges faced by Vietnam veterans receiving specialized palliative and hospice care and to develop best practices for hospice care specifically tailored to Vietnam veterans. Unfortunately, the VA responded with an inadequate two-page report that did not meet the reporting requirements. What the report did state is that there are over 4,000 community hospice care providers maintaining their own resources and training materials. This lack of cohesion indicates that the VA lacks consistent protocols and clear standards for veterans' hospice care. The report language for this appropriations bill addresses the VA's Vietnam Veterans End-of-Life Care report, calling it woefully inadequate, and requires the VA to redo it within 30 days of enactment. However, as it is clear that the VA currently lacks consistent hospice care protocols, I am instead calling on the VA to establish protocols that will meet the needs of Vietnam-era veterans. The VA must act now to implement clear and consistent standards of care for our veterans in need of hospice care. Developing these standards would also be beneficial for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria combat veterans in the future. We have a responsibility to ensure that our Nation's heroes are receiving the care and benefits they deserve and have earned, and that includes ensuring the VA has in place clear hospice care standards and services tailored to the unique needs of these veterans. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Nation's oldest, continuously running Memorial Day parade, the Ironton- Lawrence County Memorial Day Parade. In 1868, the Grand Army of the Republic established May 30 as Decoration Day, later changed to Memorial Day, to commemorate soldiers who died during the Civil War. It was in 1868 that Ironton held their first parade, and 2018 marks 150 straight years of honoring America's fallen heroes. Ironton and Lawrence County have a long association with America's military. Lawrence County was named for James Lawrence, a naval hero who commanded the USS Chesapeake. It was Lawrence's dying command during a naval conflict against the British that is still remembered today: ``Don't give up the ship.'' The 40 members of the parade committee work year round to organize the event, which has 12 separate divisions and draws tens of thousands of visitors annually. I commend the committee and the people of Lawrence County for their steadfast commitment to remembering and honoring American heroes over the last 150 years.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Mr. Speaker, I am actually a little bit confused. I thought this was supposed to be a debate on a rule dealing with overturning onerous EPA regulations. Instead, our colleagues on the left want to talk about something totally nongermane and change the subject. And then we wonder why the American people get so frustrated that this institution can't seem to address its big issues. I also heard a little bit ago an impassioned claim by my colleague on the left over here that the legislation that we are talking about today somehow flies in the face of the courts. That is not true because the courts have already overturned this regulation one time and set it aside, and it has cost the industries millions and millions of dollars that they shouldn't have had to spend. I also heard it claimed that it flies in the face of commonsense, science-based evidence. That is not true because, if it were, then the courts wouldn't have made the decision to set it aside in the first place. H.R. 1917, the BRICK Act, is about regulatory common sense, Mr. Speaker, but it is also about preserving good-paying jobs in rural communities across America. Brickmakers and tile manufacturers are primarily small businesses, and their product is critical for our infrastructure. They have built some of the most iconic towns and buildings across America, and this bill will help ensure that these small businesses are able to continue to do exactly that. The EPA's current Brick MACT rule, finalized in 2015, would impose millions of dollars in costs on these small businesses, all before judicial review of the rule is complete. And while the EPA, under the former administration, estimates that the annual costs to comply with the rule will be about $25 million, other estimates have projected the annual costs to be up to $100 million or greater. For a facility with two kilns, which is the industry average, the costs are estimated to be $4.4 million. Securing capital for these projects will be very difficult, and some worry that it will simply not be available considering that these compliance costs will not improve plant productivity nor help its bottom line. What is worse is that these costs are over and above the tens of millions of dollars spent by the industry to comply with an earlier version of the rule vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court in 2007. H.R. 1917 simply allows for the consideration and completion of any judicial review regarding the 2015 regulation before requiring compliance. For an industry that has faced so much regulatory uncertainty, through rules, vacated rules, and now new regulation, H.R. 1917 will help inject a bit of much-needed regulatory certainty back into this industry. Additionally, this bill provides regulatory relief for our wood heater manufacturers, which helps provide an affordable source of heat for many low-income and rural households. EPA regulations set to take effect in 2020 are causing some manufacturers to already lay off workers. This industry needs more time to comply, and a provision within H.R. 1917 will simply extend that compliance deadline from 2020 to 2023. If left unchanged, product choice will diminish, prices will rise, and more jobs will be lost. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure our Federal agencies are not needlessly regulating companies out of business. Brick manufacturers have suffered heavy losses since the recession, losing about 45 percent of jobs between 2005 and 2012. Increased compliance costs from these EPA regulations will only lead to more job losses and consolidations within this primarily family-owned business industry. We owe this industry regulatory certainty. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support H.R. 1917 because, if we don't, if the brick industry gets shut down because of these onerous rules, we are going to start building buildings, Mr. Speaker, out of straw and sticks instead of bricks.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the majority of U.S. brick and ceramic plants are small, family-owned operations, often located in rural communities that depend on the plant for their very livelihood, for the good-paying jobs. They have built some of the most recognizable buildings, cities, and towns in existence across America, including many within my district in eastern and southeastern Ohio. Unfortunately, these industries have borne the brunt of an unpredictable regulatory process that is nearly two decades in the making. In 2003, the EPA required brickmakers to install expensive new equipment to comply with the Agency's Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or their MACT rule. In 2007, after companies spent millions to implement these controls, the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule. Our brickmakers now find themselves in a very similar situation today. In 2015, the EPA again finalized a rule requiring the industry to once again invest in similar control equipment technologies. Additionally, this new regulation uses the emission reductions achieved under the vacated regulation as a baseline for further emission reductions. In other words, the EPA, under the former administration, chose not to recognize the great strides this industry achieved under the previously vacated rule. The Agency neglected to take this past regulatory and compliance history into consideration. Mr. Speaker, that is simply not right. The bill before us today, H.R. 1917, the BRICK Act, ensures history does not repeat itself. This legislation simply allows for the consideration and completion of any judicial review regarding the 2015 regulation before requiring compliance. Now, some of my colleagues across the aisle say they are worried that this legislation sets a dangerous precedent. Many of these same colleagues are also quick to recognize the very unique regulatory situation this industry finds itself in. They even go so far as to say they are sympathetic to the unique situation. However, they are unwilling to support this bill that simply extends the compliance deadlines, which would give the brick and tile industries a bit of regulatory certainty while the courts complete their work. Mr. Speaker, that logic baffles me. We need a bit of pragmatism when we approach this situation. Because if you really want to talk about a dangerous precedent, consider this: this new regulation also caps the economic productivity of the clay ceramics industry. While the former administration admitted that this regulation will not reduce emissions emitted by the industry, it decided to set new emission standards through regulations anyway. Regulating an industry for no immediate reason or environmental benefit? Now that is a dangerous precedent. Brick manufacturers have suffered heavy losses since the recession, shedding 45 percent of jobs between 2005 and 2012, and these increased compliance costs from EPA regulations are driving more job losses and consolidations within this primarily family-owned industry. Brick plant owners already struggle to obtain financing for plant modernization projects, and brick companies estimate that this rule will cost as much as $100 million a year to comply. Many are worried that the financing needed to comply with this most recent reiteration of this rule will not be available, considering that the required control equipment will not improve plant productivity, nor help the bottom line. I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation today, and I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to quickly address this issue. I know some recent bipartisan progress has been made in the Senate between Senator Wicker and Senator Donnelly, and I am very encouraged by that progress. I am hopeful that this vote today will help push the Senate to act and act sooner than later. The compliance deadlines are quickly approaching, and we need a solution now to this important issue. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we are in danger of having to build buildings in America out of sticks and straw, or, worse yet, out of bricks imported from foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my strongest, deepest sympathies and condolences to Ray Baum's family on his passing. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4986, the RAY BAUM'S Act, to reauthorize the FCC for the first time in 28 years. This important legislation also provides transparency and efficiency reforms, including language from my bill, H.R. 2636, to create an independent inspector general for the FCC. Currently, the IG is not only appointed by the chairman, but also reports to and is under general supervision of the Chairman of the Commission. This legislation would require the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint the inspector general. It is simply good governance and a matter of transparency and accountability to have an independent IG. Importantly, this legislation also creates and authorizes a broadcast repack fund to address the anticipated shortfall in funding available to relocate broadcasters who are displaced from the most recent spectrum auction. It is important that we provide the funding necessary to successfully relocate these broadcasters and ensure an efficient and timely transition. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to reauthorize the FCC.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during roll call vote 44. I was tending to my critically ill mother. Had I been present, I would have voted `yes.'

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Black for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I hear it all the time, and it is just a false narrative. This idea that the tax reform package presented by Republicans is only a tax relief for the wealthy and that the middle class and low-income families are not going to benefit from it is just absolutely untrue. We are talking about doubling the standard deduction. Millions of Americans aren't even going to pay any taxes. That is particularly important in rural areas like I represent in Ohio. So I would urge my colleagues, let's stop this false narrative that says that this is just a tax cut for the wealthy, because that is not true. By the way, when you cut taxes on businesses and corporations, who pays those taxes, Mr. Speaker? It is the American people who buy the products that pay those taxes. When they get a break, everybody wins. Look, the adoption of the Senate amendment to the House-passed budget that we are going to vote on today paves the way for tax reform. It is going to establish a path of balance through restrained spending, reduced taxes, and economic growth. It is going to allow for higher defense spending contingent on future adjustments to discretionary spending caps for defense and national security, but it begins to address our national debt. It reduces nondefense discretionary spending by over $600 billion over 10 years. It assumes more than $4 trillion in mandatory savings over 10 years. And it provides for budget enforcement in the House in order to strengthen fiscal discipline. Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible path forward. The American people are screaming for a simpler, fairer, flatter Tax Code, one that makes American workers competitive, one that let's the American people keep more of what they earn in their pockets. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's vote, pass this budget amendment, and let's get on to tax reform.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I saw recently, and I remember Ronald Reagan said something when he finally got his tax reform package done back in 1986--why it took so long and why it was so difficult. And at the end the day, he said: You know, the lawmakers and the policymakers forgot one important factor in their calculations that brought us to this point; they forgot to include what the American people have to say about this. That is what is happening here today, Mr. Chairman. The American people have told us they want economic growth. They want opportunities for their kids and their families, a better quality of life. They want Washington to live within its means and stop taking more and more and more from them out of their paychecks. So let's do a little bit of comparison. Let's look at, my colleagues, the Democrat budget. It raises taxes by $2.7 trillion, compared to the CBO January baseline. That is almost $3.8 trillion more than revenue levels in our House Republican budget. It increases spending by $6.2 trillion, compared to the Republican budget over that 10-year period. It increases the debt held by the public by $3.9 trillion, almost $4 trillion relative to the House Republican budget. And what is important, Mr. Chair, it never balances. There is not even an attempt to balance; not to mention that there are no reconciliation instructions that would give us an opportunity to deal with healthcare and other economic growth reforms. Mr. Chairman, this is not a responsible budget that is being offered by our colleagues on the other side. I urge my colleagues to oppose it and to support the House Republican budget later today.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, it kind of blows my mind. You look at the sign that was just displayed by our colleague; it says that the Republican budget is a bad deal for working Americans. Well, I don't know what Americans you folks are talking to, but the middle class Americans that I talk to, they want an economic growing, job creating, tax cutting budget and tax relief effort. That is what they want out of the House. That is what the Republican plan is bringing. We not only rebuild our military, but we do something that has not been done in years. We begin to get into that mandatory spending and the out-of-control spending that we have here in our Nation's Capitol. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the biggest threat to our national security is our national debt. How are we ever going to do that if we don't begin to address mandatory spending? Mr. Chair, we have brought a good budget, a responsible budget, one that balances in 10 years to the floor. We need to get every colleague in this Chamber to get behind it because it is good for working Americans, it is good for working families, and it is the responsible thing to do.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and giving me an opportunity to speak on such a critically important topic. You know, I served for 26\1/2\ years, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Air Force. I pinned Purple Hearts on the chests of some of my troops that had gone into harm's way. I know the stress and strain on military families and on military members. I represent a district that arguably is one of the largest, if not the largest, veteran-populated districts in the State of Ohio, with nearly 50,000. And yet today, in 2017, we see 20 veterans per day, 1 every 72 minutes, committing suicide. What does that say about us as a nation when we send our young people off in uniform to stand in harm's way, to protect our freedoms, to protect our liberties, to protect our values and way of life, and then when they come home we can't get them the help that they need when they are down? One of the saddest days since I began serving the people of eastern and southeastern Ohio was the day I got a call from a young wife of a military member. She said she had been dealing with the VA for quite some time to get her husband an appointment with a mental health counselor, all to no avail. He couldn't get in, couldn't get in, couldn't get in. I stopped by the VA center one day. I asked to speak to the director, gave the young man's name, and I said: I would like to see the status of his appointment. They looked him up in the system, and they said: Well, you will be happy to know, Congressman, that he has got an appointment next Wednesday. I said: Well, I am actually here to tell you that you can cancel that appointment because he committed suicide last week. He had been waiting for weeks and weeks and weeks to get in to see a mental health counselor, struggling with PTSD and the emotional and mental battle scars that came back with him from combat overseas. You know, it is one thing that we send our young people away to fight for us on foreign soil. Imagine for a second what their families go through when they are gone day in and day out, not knowing if they are going to get that call or that knock at the door to tell them that their loved one has been injured or, worse, killed in action. And then we bring their loved one home, and they are helpless in terms of getting them the care and the treatment that they need. I agree with my colleague: we need to do more. The agencies, the VA, the Department of Defense, mental health counselors all over the country, Congress, families, communities, we need to do more to help our veterans get back on their feet after they have participated in that inhumane, disastrous, catastrophic event known as war. Mr. Speaker, it almost leaves you speechless to think about the millions of families that are impacted by this, 20 per day--20 per day. One per day is unacceptable, but yet we are seeing 20 per day. I urge my colleagues and I urge our agencies in the Federal Government--the VA, the DOD--let's get behind an effort, and let's turn this trend in the opposite direction. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time to speak.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I want to thank my colleague, Representative Murphy, for holding this Special Order on such a critically important topic. And you mention that my district borders the State of Pennsylvania, and it does. And I have had so many incidents of engagement with my constituents on the opioid addiction issue. Several of them really stick out. Representative Murphy, one of those happened in Pennsylvania. Occasionally, because my district goes all the way up to the top into northeast Ohio, occasionally I fly in and out of Pennsylvania. I was there a couple of years ago, and I was sitting in the lounge waiting for a flight. I happened to be on a phone call, and I noticed that a gentleman began to look my direction. He very patiently waited until I got off the telephone, and then he came over, introduced himself. He recognized me, and he said: I am not one of your constituents, but I know that you represent a district just across the border in Ohio. He said: But I want to implore you, to beg you and your colleagues in Congress, please do something about the opioid addiction. He said: Our 21-year-old son died of an overdose in January. He had just gotten out of a rehab, was doing well, had gotten a job. He came home one Friday night, said he was going out with some friends. The next morning his mother and I found him dead in his room. I hear stories like that all of the time. I can tell you that the opioid addiction epidemic that is streaking across our country is not one that we are going to be able to arrest our way out of. It is not one that we are going to be able to incarcerate our way out of. It is an issue, my dear colleagues, that is going to take everybody from the top to the bottom, from the President of the United States all the way down to the family members. I am talking about local government officials, law enforcement, the judiciary, faith-based organizations, community organizations. This is something we are going to have to all be engaged in. We have appropriated, as you know, Representative Murphy, hundreds of millions of dollars, billions, in fact, to attack the opioid epidemic. More is needed. We are not going to be able to simply throw money at this problem. It is going to require a cultural change within our country. I have so many other stories, but I don't want to take up more time because I know I have other colleagues here who want to testify on this very important issue. Just know that I am with you. We take this issue very seriously in our district. Back in Ohio, we are constantly reaching out to law enforcement, mental health providers, healthcare providers, faith- and community-based organizations, and families on how to attack this problem. I thank you for giving me a chance to speak on it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me time to speak up. I, too, agree that Members of Congress should be subject to the same rules and laws that the American people are. So I support my colleague, Ms. McSally, in this legislation. But, you know, I want to speak to the bigger, broader issue here. My colleague from Pennsylvania said: What about that family with that kid that has cancer? Where was my colleague and the friends on the other side of the aisle when ObamaCare resulted in millions of policy cancellations and millions of Americans losing their coverage because of the broken promises? Where was my colleague and the Democrats when millions of Americans were forced out of work because of the job-killing policies of ObamaCare? Let me tell you something. The American people remembered that, and that is what happened in 2010. We didn't hide in a back room to get what we are doing today done. We have been working on it for 6 years, and we are going to get it done today. We are going to meet the promises that we made to the American people, and starting today, ObamaCare is on its way out the door.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating Steve Stivers on his promotion to brigadier general. I served for 26\1/2\ years in the United States Air Force, and I can tell you that every officer who puts on the uniform, in the quiet moments of their own minds, they dream of the day that maybe someday they might aspire to become a flag officer or to attain the rank of general officer. I can tell you that, from my perspective, it is a lot easier to get elected to the House of Representatives than it is to earn the rank of general--at least that is what my experience shows. I can tell you, I never served under Steve Stivers and his command, but if his military leadership and performance is anything like his performance here in the House, he is going to represent the State of Ohio and our Nation very well. Congratulations to my colleague, Steve Stivers. God bless you, and thank you for your service to our country.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, when the FCC reclassified the internet as a common carrier, utility-style service and adopted their rules regulating the use of consumer data by internet service providers, it represented a monumental shift in the way we view privacy. Instead of a uniform, technology-neutral standard that balanced data protection with consumer choice, internet users were stuck with a two- sided approach that causes confusion and dampens competition. There is one set of rules for service providers, and one set for the rest of the internet ecosystem. But how often do consumers really recognize the difference between where their data is accessed and where it is stored? Ultimately, consumers are actually harmed by the artificial sense of protection created by these rules. It is essential that we take steps to restore the time-tested framework embraced by the Federal Trade Commission. We have talked a lot about protecting consumer privacy and data, but I haven't heard a lot about allowing the consumer to decide how their information is used. Consumers deserve to have the autonomy to control their information and their internet experience. As Acting Chairman of the FTC Maureen Ohlhausen pointed out: The FTC approach reflects the fact that consumer privacy preferences differ greatly depending on the type of data and its use. There is widespread agreement that sensitive data, like financial or health information, should be strongly protected and opt-in appropriate. But what about other types of nonsensitive data? Let's not forget the ways that consumers benefit from allowing ISPs access to that kind of information. Consumers should retain the ability to make the decisions that make sense for them when it comes to how their nonsensitive data is used and obtain the discounts or lower prices that can result. This vote isn't about reducing the level of privacy protection for consumers; it is about an FCC decision that ignored the preferences of consumers in favor of a regulatory power grab.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. The FCC's privacy rules are an overreaching regulatory mess that create confusion and inconsistency for consumers, harm competition, and upend internet privacy as we know it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November. In fact, they have been speaking loudly and clearly ever since this fatally flawed bill called ObamaCare was signed into law. And now we are hours away from the vote that the American people have been waiting years for. This vote can be distilled down to simply this, and each Member of this body must ask themselves this simple question: Are they willing to allow ObamaCare to remain the law of the land? Or are we going to begin to restore healthcare decisions to the American people and their doctors? Those who choose to vote against the American Health Care Act, regardless of how they attempt to justify it, will be voting to keep ObamaCare in place. This is an inescapable fact that will remain long after the smoke and spin and handwringing from political pundits following this vote has gone and disappeared, regardless of how the votes go. There is no such thing as perfect legislation in a body of 435 men and women representing 435 different parts of the Nation. There is consensus among the American people that this law should be repealed and replaced, and today the people's House will either acknowledge the will of the people or we will defy it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 155.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Resolution of Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that we consider today, if enacted, would void the Stream Protection Rule (SPR). In light of an independent analysis of the potential impacts of the rule including the loss of at least one third of existing coal mining jobs, this resolution is absolutely critical for our Nation's coal miners, their communities, and the related industries that support and rely on coal mining. If enacted, the joint resolution disapproving the SPR would bar the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) from reissuing the rule in substantially the same form, or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as the SPR, unless specifically authorized by subsequently enacted legislation. The SPR represents a near-complete regulatory re-write by adding, amending or modifying 475 different regulations under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) program. The unlawful and offending features of the rule include impermissibly duplicating and conflicting with other federal and state laws; diminishing the exclusive regulatory jurisdiction of States with approved programs under SMCRA; interfering with the primary governmental responsibility SMCRA delegates to States for developing, issuing and enforcing regulations for surface coal mining and reclamation operations within their borders; applying to underground mining operations standards and requirements intended for surface mining operations despite the distinct differences between surface and underground mining; and, requiring changes to approved state programs without a demonstration that the state program is no longer effective in meeting the purposes of SMCRA. Therefore, any rule which includes any of these components is substantially the same as the SPR for purposes of the Congressional Review Act. An example of impermissible duplication or conflict with other federal and state laws or the authorities of other agencies would be a recently completed biological opinion and memorandum of understanding (MOU) between OSM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the SPR allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to effectively veto any SMCRA permit simply by withholding approval. Issuing SMCRA permits is the exclusive province of SMCRA regulatory authorities, which in most cases are the States with approved SMCRA programs. Nothing in SMCRA or the Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the power to disapprove, veto, or otherwise withhold a SMCRA permit. Any rule subsequently promulgated by OSM which gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the authority to directly or indirectly disapprove SMCRA permits would be substantially the same as the SPR and therefore impermissible. There are many other provisions which overlap, duplicate, or conflict with the requirements of other state and federal laws, which is prohibited by Section 702 of SMCRA. For example, the SPR violates both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and SMCRA by claiming for OSM the authority not only to enforce the CWA, but to also superimpose regulations that duplicate, conflict with and override CWA programs. Similarly, OSM vastly expanded the applicability of the ESA by requiring states and operators to account for species proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, which runs counter to the intent of the ESA and would have circumvented the rulemaking process established in the Administrative Procedures Act. Such self-deputization and usurpation of authority is a cornerstone of the SPR and any future rulemaking by OSM which attempts to duplicate, usurp, conflict with, or otherwise overlap with the existing requirements of other state and federal laws and the authorities of other state and federal agencies would be substantially the same as the SPR. The SPR includes dozens of provisions which diminish the states' authority under SMCRA. Because of the wide diversity in physical conditions across the nation's coal fields, Congress expressly delegated to the states the authority for developing and tailoring SMCRA's requirements to those conditions. A good example of how the rule tramples the states' authority is its attempt to set a national definition for ``material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit area.'' With the diversity in physical conditions and hydrology across the states and even within a state, it defies commons sense to promulgate a federal definition. It also robs the states of their delegated authority to tailor their rules in a manner that is suitable for meeting that statutory objective. To make matters worse, the rule precludes states from making appropriate adjustments on how SMCRA objectives should be achieved for distinct types of operations such as surface or underground mines. The rule is replete with examples of the mindset that only Washington knows best. Ironically, it's the states that possess the vast experience of regulating 97 percent of the coal mines in this country since SMCRA was passed in 1977. A rule that attempts to repeat this ``one-size-fits-all'' model would be substantially the same as the SPR