Tom Marino

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, my colleague forgets to mention the fact that the lead Federal agency in this is responsible for maintaining a schedule, just like we do in private industry, just like we do in our own homes. That agency is responsible for going to the States and to the locals and other Federal agencies to make sure things are being done. Unfortunately, here in D.C., and sometimes at the State level, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and this is making agencies responsible for that. It is just common sense. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to strike the bill's prohibition against agency use in permitting reviews of the Obama administration's pronouncements on the social costs of carbon, but this prohibition was adopted last term for a very good reason. The administration's social cost of carbon estimate is junk science. To be specific, multiple commentators on the administration's findings about the social cost of carbon argue that carbon's social cost is an unknown quantity, that social cost of carbon analysts can get just about any result they desire by fiddling with nonvalidated climate parameters, made-up damage functions, and below-market discount rates, and that social cost of carbon analysis is computer-aided sophistry, its political function being to make renewable energy look like a bargain at any price and fossil energy look unaffordable, no matter how cheap. Junk science and sophistry has no place standing between hard-working Americans and new, high-paying jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment. It is bad enough that agencies already take too much time to conclude construction permit reviews. It is even worse for them to draw out the process on the basis of junk science. And that is precisely what the Obama administration's pronouncements on the ``social sost of carbon'' appear to be. The Obama administration's current ``social cost of carbon'' estimate is plagued by defects including the lack of full scientific peer review, robust public comment, and full compliance with federal requirements for influential scientific assessments. Subsection (K) of the bill prohibits the use of the administration's ``technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order No. 12866,'' as well as successors to it. The gentleman's amendment makes crystal clear that agencies also may not rely on administration ``guidance'' documents intended to facilitate agencies' use of the prohibited technical document. I urge my colleagues to suport the amendment.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, once again, my good friends on the other side think we need more government, more EPA overreach, more regulation, to continue the $19 trillion of debt that we have and to continue the flawed job opportunities of this administration's over the past 6 years. Once again, today we consider the RAPID Act. As the gentleman from Virginia stated, during the 112th and 113th Congresses, the House passed this bill on three separate occasions in a bipartisan fashion. Once again, we are considering a number of important regulatory reforms that present the potential for immediately impactful economic growth across our Nation. Our Federal permitting process is undeniably broken. Duplicative environmental reviews have clogged decision-making for years. Although recent studies have shown that, on average, an environmental impact study will take 3 to 4 years, the permitting process for many projects takes years more or, sadly, even decades. Even more disappointing are indications that average environmental review times are increasing by over a month per year. Furthermore, final decision-making has been driven by political whims rather than by the merits of any particular project that would be borne through economic growth and job creation. Political pressure should never impede projects of worth that would get Americans back to work. One recent study found that 7 years of delay on the Keystone pipeline have kept us from realizing nearly $175 billion in potential economic activity. At a time when true economic recovery lags and more Americans become disheartened and leave the workforce, such delays are unacceptable. The RAPID Act reforms remove government obstructions from the equation by implementing hard deadlines for environmental review, and they shorten the window for judicial review. It doesn't take review away. It shortens it to a reasonable period of time. We cannot delay while our infrastructure--from highways and bridges to transmission lines and waterways--crumbles around us in America's counties, towns, and cities. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the Senate to bring this bill to the President's desk, and I hope that we can get this country working again. Federal agencies and departments and employees have to be held accountable just like we are in private industry. They cannot sit back and let these permits and these issues stack up on their desks while they play games on their computers. I have hope that we can get this bill through and the country working again. Please support the RAPID Act.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 490 I was unable to be present to vote due to a personal family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill to enact certain laws relating to the environment as title 55, United States Code, ``Environment''. The bill restates the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, and the Clean Air Act, along with related provisions in other Acts, as a new positive law title of the United States Code. The new positive law title replaces the existing provisions, which are repealed by the bill. The bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives as part of its ongoing responsibility under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285b to prepare, and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary one title at a time, a complete compilation, restatement, and revision of the general and permanent laws of the United States. All changes in existing law made by the bill are purely technical in nature. The bill was prepared in accordance with the statutory standard for codification legislation, which is that the restatement of existing law shall conform to the understood policy, intent, and purpose of Congress in the original enactments, with such amendments and corrections as will remove ambiguities, contradictions, and other imperfections. The bill is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non- substantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure, but these changes are not intended to have any substantive effect. The bill, along with a detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill, can be found on the Law Revision Counsel Internet site at http:// uscode.house.gov/codification/t55/index.html. Interested parties are invited to submit comments, not later than 30 days after today's date, to Tim Trushel, Senior Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, from the time of Ben Franklin, reliable and affordable universal mail delivery service has been an essential commitment here in the United States, particularly to rural and low-income urban areas like my own. I am concerned when I hear my constituents assert that our ongoing trade negotiations could undermine our Postal Service. TPA and trade negotiations must not undermine the U.S. Postal Service. I am also very concerned that continued dumped steel imports are hurting our steel manufacturers. This is a very important industry in my district. Even when we have antidumping duties to counter dumped imports, these duties are often evaded through various schemes, such as sending steel to another country to manufacture steel products, then send the finalized product to the United States. We must address these problems in this litigation for my support.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to recognize Glenn D. Steele Jr., MD, PhD, President and Chief Executive Officer of Geisinger Health System, an integrated health services organization in central and northeastern Pennsylvania nationally recognized for its innovative use of the electronic health records and the development and implementation of innovative care models. Geisinger Health System, founded in 1915 by Abigail Geisinger, has grown to be one of the nation's largest rural health services organizations serving more than 3 million residents throughout 48 counties in central, south-central and northeast Pennsylvania. When Dr. Glenn Steele began his tenure in 2001 as Geisinger Health System's CEO, there were just over 7,000 employees, including 540 physicians. Under his leadership Geisinger has grown tremendously. It is now comprised of approximately 23,500 employees, including a 1,200- member multi-specialty group practice, nine hospital campuses, two research centers and a 467,000-member health plan, all of which leverage an estimated $7.7 billion positive impact on the Pennsylvania economy. The health system and the health plan have repeatedly garnered national accolades for integration, quality and service. In addition to fulfilling its patient care mission, Geisinger has a long-standing commitment to medical education, research and community service. On behalf of all Pennsylvanians, I am pleased to recognize Dr. Glenn Steele for improving the quality of life for citizens through his leadership and contributions to health care innovation.

Mr. MARINO

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

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from this bill from being used to transfer or detail employees to the Office of the Pardon Attorney to support the administration's so-called clemency project. The President possesses the constitutional authority ``to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.'' However, in the first 5 years of his administration, President Obama granted fewer pardons and commutations than any of his recent predecessors. Last year, the Deputy Attorney General took the unprecedented step of asking the defense bar for assistance in recruiting candidates for executive clemency, specifically for Federal drug offenders. The Justice Department intends to beef up its Office of the Pardon Attorney to process applications for commutations of sentence for Federal drug offenders. The Justice Department is also accepting pro bono legal work from the ACLU and other defense attorney organizations for this initiative. This amendment would prohibit that. The Constitution gives the President the pardon power, but the fact that the President has chosen to use that power solely on behalf of drug offenders shows that this is little more than a political ploy by the administration to bypass Congress. This is not, as the Founders intended, an exercise of the power to provide for ``exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt,'' but the use of the pardon power to benefit an entire class of offenders duly convicted in a court of law. It is also just the latest example of the executive overreach by this administration, and I urge support of my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I would share with my good friend from Pennsylvania, no matter who is in the White House, Republican or Democrat, my enthusiasm is always at an all-time high, particularly when it comes to following the law. The President does have the authority to pardon, but not to, as he has done here, zeroed in on a specific class of individuals who broke the law, and that is people who use drugs, sell drugs, made profits from drugs, and were duly found guilty and sentenced. This is just a way for this administration to bypass the drug laws that they don't agree with. This administration is known for that. If they don't agree with something, they just try to bypass it, as they have done numerous times with Congress. But, fortunately, the United States Supreme Court has slapped this administration down numerous times because of bypassing Congress and making decisions that are not in its authority. So let's be realistic about this. This isn't an issue of politics, from my perspective. I do say it is an issue of politics from the administration's perspective. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. MARINO. I am sure in my remarks my colleague is not referring to any comment that I made that no other President has done something of this nature. I came to Congress in 2011. Really, my concern is what is happening with this administration, not past administrations. I am dwelling on the future and the rule of law. It is very clear what this administration is doing when it comes to the rule of law or the lack of rule of law. Once again, this administration does not like the drug laws. It has a very difficult time with the criminal laws that are on the books. I was a prosecutor for 18 years at the State level and the Federal level. I have seen what takes place concerning drugs. I have put people in prison for selling drugs; I have put people in prison for hurting people who they sell drugs to; and I have taken the position where some people did not deserve to go to prison based on several factors. But the individuals that I sent to prison, and I think, overwhelmingly, according to the criteria that this administration has set, they are talking about individuals that have a sentence of 10 years or less, that is quite a sentence to pardon, because those individuals who have been sent to prison, in my experience, for 5 and 6 and 10 years are major drug dealers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to congratulate Pennsylvania Cystic Fibrosis, Inc. (PACFI) for 30 years of work in raising Cystic Fibrosis awareness and funding Cystic Fibrosis research efforts. PACFI is an independent, non-profit, all volunteer organization that provides crucial services and much needed support for Pennsylvania families affected by Cystic Fibrosis. PACFI was founded on October 2, 1985. The PACFI organization is unique in that they do not have a paid staff and operate solely with volunteers. This allows PACFI to use 100% of donations they receive to provide benefits for Pennsylvania families such as paying for emergency and other medical expenses. PACFI also works to fund Cystic Fibrosis research around the country. To date, they have raised more than $565,000 for institutions and universities that are on the leading edge of Cystic Fibrosis research. These donations are helping to discover better treatment options and will hopefully lead to a cure. PACFI is doing excellent work in Pennsylvania on one of the most common and fatal genetic diseases. Cystic Fibrosis affects approximately 1 in 2000 people and their life expectancy is only 35 years. I commend PACFI for doing great work in the field of Cystic Fibrosis research and supporting families that need assistance with the costs of Cystic Fibrosis treatment.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize May as National Foster Care Month. On September 30, 2012, there was an estimated 400,000 children in foster care. Sixty-five percent of foster children experience at least seven school changes while in care. Fifty percent of former foster and probation youth become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. My foster shadow today is Damara. She is from Pennsylvania, and we are exchanging some great ideas about foster care. All children deserve a safe, loving, and permanent home. Please become a foster care parent. My wife and I are foster care parents and associated with working with children throughout my life. We have provided so much for them, but equally important, they have provided so much for us.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the USA FREEDOM Act. I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on a true compromise piece of legislation. It protects the privacy of American citizens, according to the Constitution, while ensuring our national security, which is a priority. I understand the importance of reauthorizing these important FISA provisions. As a U.S. attorney, I had these tools at my disposal, and I used them to protect Americans in Pennsylvania and across the country. We needed them at the time, and we need them now. However, I equally understand the importance of also protecting the privacy interests of American citizens. The act ends bulk collection; it strengthens protections of civil liberties; it increases transparency; all while ensuring that our intelligence and national security agencies have the tools they need to fight terrorism abroad. In addition, the USA FREEDOM Act protects American citizens at home.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, in early 2013, a pharmacist told me about a problem he was having accessing necessary prescriptions for his customers, many of whom were older cancer patients suffering with chronic pain. What started out as a simple conversation with a constituent soon turned into serious concerns about problems in the prescription drug supply chain--problems that we aim to address here today by passing H.R. 471, the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act. Any legitimate business involved in distributing or dispensing prescriptions welcomes appropriate oversight and regulation. Further, we know these businesses value a collaborative working relationship with agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration. Manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies alike are on the front lines every day in the fight to end the prescription drug abuse epidemic. They are making efforts to educate prescribers and patients about the safe use and disposal of prescriptions and working to implement prescription drug monitoring programs that will reduce the illegal diversion of powerful opioid pain relievers. Despite a strong commitment to being part of the solution, distributors and pharmacists are finding that the unnecessary adversarial regulatory environment created by the DEA is putting effective enforcement outcomes in jeopardy. As a former district attorney and United States attorney, I have fond memories of working with DEA agents to put away drug dealers. To say that I have the highest regard for the DEA and the work they do does not begin to convey my respect for the agency and its employees. That is why I am so passionate about this subject and why I think it is necessary to pass H.R. 471 today. This bill will bring much-needed clarity to critical provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. In doing so, we will ensure that the DEA's authorities are not abused and threatened by future legal challenges; foster greater collaboration, communication, and transparency between the DEA and the supply chain; create more opportunities to identify bad actors at the end of the supply chain; and, most importantly, be certain that prescriptions are accessible to patients in need. We are all in this together. We cannot enforce our way out of this epidemic. Education, treatment, and enforcement are all critical to addressing the problem, but so is collaboration. The clarity that H.R. 471 brings will ensure that the current regulatory culture evolves into one that rewards cooperation and brings more successful diversion control efforts in the future. I want to thank my friend, Congresswoman Blackburn, for working closely with my team and me to develop the bill. I want to thank our champions on the other side of the aisle, Dr. Judy Chu and Representative Peter Welch, for their leadership and efforts to bring us here today. We could not have achieved this without the efforts of Chairman Pitts and Chairman Upton and their staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I must thank House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte for his forthright suggestions that made this a more effective, efficient measure worthy of consideration by this House. Again, I want to stress the fact that this is bipartisan. The Democrats and the Republicans saw the importance in this and got together, and we worked it out, and I thank everyone involved.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 48 I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 50 I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 49 I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 46, I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MARINO

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 47, I was unable to make votes due to the weather (snow storm) in Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.