Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), I offer amendment No. 2.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in support of my amendment. This is a targeted amendment that strikes section 2(b) from the bill. This section deals with EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, also known as CSAPR. This is one of the most important Clean Air Act rules in recent years. It protects the health of millions of Americans by requiring upwind States in the eastern and central United States to reduce power plant emissions that cause air quality problems in downward States. As I have mentioned before during general debate, an important feature of CSAPR is the trading program that allows sources in each State to meet emission budgets in many different ways, including trading of emission allowances. This approach reduces the overall cost of compliance, while ensuring reduction in air pollution. I mentioned previously during general debate that the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a legislative hearing on this bill on February 3. At that hearing, the EPA and John Walke from the Natural Resources Defense Council provided testimony that described a number of policy and technical issues with this section of the bill, and I just want to touch on a few of them now. First, by allocating emission allowances to waste coal units that cannot be traded, the SENSE Act would eliminate economic incentives to reduce toxic air pollution at these waste coal units. Second, by reallocating allowances from other sources within the State to waste coal units and then limiting the ability to transfer or trade these additional allowances to other facilities, the bill would choose winners--that is, the waste coal plants--and losers--that is, all other coal plants in a given State. Third, by interfering with the conditions of the CSAPR market, compliance costs would increase for covered facilities. Now, the SENSE Act would also remove a State's right to determine the appropriate method of compliance with CSAPR. To be more specific, currently, under the Clean Air Act, an individual State may choose to reduce emissions from power plants based on EPA's CSAPR framework, or they can choose to comply with the rule by reducing emissions based on a framework the State develops and the EPA approves. One of the most egregious aspects of the bill's CSAPR provision--and it is one that I am surprised my Republican colleagues would support-- is that, if the bill were to become law, it would actually take this power away from the States and give it to the EPA. Or, to put it another way, the SENSE Act would wrest control away from States to make these basic decisions for the first time in the 39-year history of the Clean Air Act's interstate air pollution program. EPA also pointed out that the SENSE Act would deny States control over allocations of allowances by rendering any submitted State plan with a different allocation to these units unapprovable. So why supporters of this bill would want to change a successful EPA program to make it less flexible and more costly is beyond me. The CSAPR provisions of the bill make unnecessary changes to the rule since States already have the power to help out waste coal plants if they want to. So, again, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to strike the CSAPR portion of this SENSE Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. The sponsor of the legislation mentioned the President's coming to visit, but I think if you look at the Statement of Administration Policy, it is quite clear that what the President is essentially saying is that he doesn't want the Congress to pick the winners and the losers. He wants the States--in this case, Pennsylvania--to have the flexibility to make their own decisions. It is not a question of what the President decides. It is clear that he is vetoing this legislation or would veto this legislation because he thinks that the flexibility is already there under the law and that the States should make those decisions rather than having Congress pick the winners and losers. I am not going to read the whole thing, Mr. Chairman, but I did want to just read the section that relates to that, if I could, from the Statement of Administration Policy. It reads: ``H.R. 3797 would create an uneven playing field by picking winners and losers in CSAPR compliance. The bill establishes a special market of CSAPR allowances for EGUs that burn coal refuse and prohibits the trading of allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs, which would interfere with and manipulate market conditions. By doing so, H.R. 3797 would: (1) economically advantage coal refuse EGUs over other EGUs by giving them allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to others; (2) reduce compliance choices for other State units; and (3) distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to reduce emissions. Further, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be unavailable for use by any other sources, resulting, in the aggregate, in less efficient and more costly CSAPR compliance. Additionally, H.R. 3797 would interfere with existing opportunities under the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation of allowances among its EGUs.'' Again, I think the Statement of Administration Policy is based on the idea that there is flexibility under the law and that States are in the best positions to make these decisions. I think it is quite clear, and I agree with everything that is in this veto message as being the basis for why we oppose the legislation; so I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy. Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 3797--satisfying energy needs and saving the environment (sense) act--rep. rothfus, r-pa, and six cosponsors The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3797, which would threaten the health of Americans by requiring changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for electric generating units (EGUs) that use coal refuse as their main fuel source. Specifically, H.R. 3797 would restrict the market-based approach currently used to allocate sulfur dioxide emission allowances issued under the CSAPR, thereby raising the costs of achieving the pollution reduction required by the rule. The bill also would undermine the emissions limits for hazardous acid gases from those established under the MATS, leading to increased health and environmental impacts from increased emissions of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, other harmful acid gases, and sulfur dioxide. CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of Americans by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions, including air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog and fine particle pollution. The pollution reductions from CSAPR and MATS will prevent thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, and heart attacks. An important feature of the CSAPR is its trading program which allows power plants to meet emission budgets in different ways, including by trading emissions allowances between emission sources within a State and some trading across States. This market-based approach reduces the cost of compliance while ensuring reductions in air pollution for citizens across the CSAPR region. H.R. 3797 would create an uneven playing field by picking winners and losers in CSAPR compliance. The bill establishes a special market of CSAPR allowances for EGUs that burn coal refuse and prohibits the trading of allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs, which would interfere with and manipulate market conditions. By doing so, H.R. 3797 would: (1) economically advantage coal refuse EGUs over other EGUs by giving them allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to others; (2) reduce compliance choices for other State units; and (3) distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to reduce emissions. Further, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be unavailable for use by any other sources, resulting, in the aggregate, in less efficient and more costly CSAPR compliance. Additionally, H.R. 3797 would interfere with existing opportunities under the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation of allowances among its EGUs. If the President were presented with H.R. 3797, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the BRICK Act. I agree with my colleagues that the brick, clay, and tile industries are in a tough position. The Bush administration issued final brick and clay emission standards--or Brick and Clay MACT standards--in 2003, 3 years after they were supposed to be completed. Unfortunately, the rule was flawed and, when challenged, the court vacated those standards as unlawful. As a result, the EPA Administrator was able to redo the brick and clay rule. I am sympathetic to the fact that the brick, clay, and tile industries have been facing some real challenges since 2007, when the housing market began to decline, but some proponents of this bill will have you believe that all of the challenges are a result of the improvements the industry must make to meet the 2015 Brick and Clay MACT rule. What they refuse to acknowledge are the real health benefits that will come with the reduction of several major air pollutants. I understand the industry stakeholders' reluctance to make further investments in pollution control technology to comply with this rule, given their previous experience with the 2003 rule, but the Clean Air Act provides a number of remedies that are available to them. The courts are the proper venue for resolving issues with the Brick and Clay MACT. To date, industry groups have filed lawsuits on the merits of the rule, but none of the interested parties have actually asked the court to stay the rule's compliance dates. The industry can also ask EPA to reconsider the rule, which I understand has already happened. In fact, earlier this week industry groups asked the D.C. Circuit Court to postpone consideration of their pending lawsuits until EPA makes a decision on whether to reconsider the rule. Neither of those remedies require action by Congress, but a legislative quick fix is the only remedy the proponents of this bill appear to care about. H.R. 4557 does not resolve the ongoing issues with this rule. In fact, it is far more likely to create a drawn-out rulemaking process fueled by an endless stream of court challenges. That wouldn't resolve any of the industry's problems with the Brick and Clay MACT rule. The bill also sets, in my opinion, a terrible precedent by delaying all of the rule's compliance requirements until all legal actions are complete. If this remedy sounds familiar, that is because it is. The majority included a similar provision in a bill we considered earlier in this Congress: H.R. 2042, the Ratepayer Protection Act. I opposed that bill, and I oppose this one for the same reasons. If we had included a litigation delay policy in the Clean Air Act, we would never have achieved the improvements in air quality and public health that we now enjoy. The Clean Air Act provides ample opportunities for industry and the public to influence the development and implementation of regulations. These tools should be used in this case. Finally, I do not support legislation to resolve the issues being raised by the bill's supporters. These issues can and should be resolved by the courts. So I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to get around the courts. I ask that they vote ``no'' on H.R. 4557.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support H.R. 3716, the Ensuring Access to Quality Medicaid Providers Act. This legislation is the compilation of two bills, H.R. 3821 and H.R. 3716, which are true efforts to improve program integrity in Medicaid in ways that will strengthen the Medicaid program. Both bipartisan bills passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee through regular order and were favorably reported by voice vote. Part of the new compiled bill reflects H.R. 3821, the Medicaid DOC Act. This bipartisan initiative, introduced by Representatives Collins of New York and Tonko, would require States that participate in fee- for-service Medicaid to publish electronic provider directories. This is critical information for patients so they can more easily find doctors in their area. Currently, managed care plans in Medicaid are already required to maintain these directories, but there is no such requirement for fee- for-service Medicaid programs. While some States are already providing these directories, not every State does so. This commonsense and consumer-friendly legislation will require that all States provide their Medicaid patients with this information, and it does so quickly, requiring directories to be up and running in less than 1 year. Now, while the bill includes minimum items that must be included in a provider directory, it also encourages States to go beyond these standards. While I am hopeful that States will take the initiative to provide other information, like whether doctors are taking new patients, the timeline set forth in this legislation is so accelerated, it is important that we build this foundation first before adding additional requirements to States. I look forward to continuing to work on this important issue with my colleagues. The second part of the bill would provide CMS with critical tools to keep patients safe, protect taxpayer dollars, and protect the integrity of the Medicaid program. This bipartisan bill, introduced by Representatives Bucshon, Welch, and Butterfield, implements previous OIG recommendations and builds on authorities originally authorized under the Affordable Care Act, which prohibited disqualified providers from Medicare or one State Medicaid program from simply crossing State lines and receiving payments in another State Medicaid program. But the current law has been hard to implement because States don't have a consistent or standardized way of knowing when a specific provider has been terminated by Medicare or another State. Since States are not currently required to report this information or, if it is reported, it is in many differing formats, it limits the data's usability. This legislation being considered would require all States to report information on fraudulent providers to the Secretary for inclusion in an existing termination database that is accessible to all States. It also requires the Secretary to develop uniform criteria for States to use when submitting information and ensures those providers in managed care plans are enrolled with the State and also captured in the database. Finally, the bill preserves and protects all existing provider appeal processes and changes nothing regarding the underlying standard for fraud in this part of the program, an important protection. This is smart policy that stakeholders and the administration agree will improve Federal and State efforts. I urge Members to support the bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the Sumgait pogroms, one of the most horrific attacks against the Armenian people, committed at the hands of Azerbaijanis 28 years ago. On February 27, 1988, hundreds of Armenian civilians living in the city of Sumgait in Azerbaijan were indiscriminately killed, raped, maimed, and even burned alive for no reason other than their ethnicity. This senseless violence was instigated by hostile, anti-Armenian rhetoric from Azerbaijani citizens and officials against innocent Armenians. For nearly three decades, Azerbaijan has taken steps to cover up these crimes against humanity and dismiss the atrocities at Sumgait. Even more disturbing is that perpetrators of this event and similar violent attacks have since been lauded as national heroes. I condemn these horrific attacks. Tragically, the Azerbaijani government's approach toward the Armenian people has not changed much since these attacks were perpetrated. In 2016, we hear the same violent rhetoric and witness the intimidation tactics by the Azerbaijani government against the people of Nagorno Karabakh. If we do not condemn crimes against humanity and allow them to go unpunished and unrecognized we only strengthen the resolve of those seeking to perpetrate these crimes in the future. The Armenian people have known this for too long, as we prepare to commemorate the 101st anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in April. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Congressional Armenian Issues Caucus to remember the victims of the pogroms at Sumgait and to condemn all acts of violence against people who are targeted simply because of their existence. I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting violent rhetoric and intimidation and renewing our commitment to achieving a collective peace.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chief Lawrence L. Mihlon on his retirement from the West Long Branch Police Department this year. Chief Mihlon dedicated 34 years to the Borough of West Long Branch and his contributions are to be celebrated. Throughout his decorated career, Chief Mihlon held many positions, serving as Lieutenant for 2 years and Captain for 7 years before being appointed Chief of Police in 2013. Chief Mihlon has an extensive police background, having served in many capacities within the department, including Patrol, Detectives, Traffic, Training, Records, Command and Administration. Prior to joining the West Long Branch Police Department in 1982, Chief Mihlon worked as a Special Officer for the Little Silver Police Department and a National Park Service Ranger at Sandy Hook and Shenandoah National Park. Chief Mihlon has been committed to serving the West Long Branch community and was focused on public relations, serving as the Department spokesman and creating the Department's website and Facebook pages. Community involvement has been instilled in Chief Mihlon's family. His mother worked as a Little Silver Police Dispatcher, his sister is a special education principal, his brother serves on Little Silver Borough Council and his nephew is a Little Silver Patrolman and Fire Chief. Over the years, Chief Mihlon has been recognized for his dedicated service and accomplishments, having received the West Long Branch Police Department's Life Saving Medal, the Education Bar and the Exceptional Duty Bar. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Chief Lawrence Mihlon on his retirement and thanking him for his service to New Jersey. Chief Mihlon's commitment to the West Long Branch community is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act, as amended. This bill will allow more transparency and increase education and outreach efforts to communities about their drinking water systems. Communities are entitled to information about their drinking water, and we should make every effort to ensure that Americans receive clear, concise and timely information about the safety of that water. This bill addresses a concern raised during the Flint water crisis about the significant delay in informing Flint residents about the dangerous levels of lead in their water. I greatly appreciate the work of Mr. Kildee and the Michigan Delegation in coming together and quickly pufting forward this legislation. It is a good place to begin our efforts to help Flint and I support its passage. Yet, this is a small, first step and does not address the imminent and long-term problems facing our nation's water systems. I know my friend from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, agrees with me on this and has put forward legislation focusing on immediate and long-term investments for Flint to address both its health and infrastructure needs. We must do more for Flint and more to ensure that our nation as a whole receives safe, clean drinking water at the tap. As I have stated time and again, our drinking water systems are deteriorating. Transparency is important, but we need to follow this effort with a reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act that increases the investment in our drinking water systems. We must invest in our drinking water infrastructure to repair, maintain, and replace aging pipes. We also must equip communities with the resources to ensure the delivery of safe drinking water, safeguard systems from vulnerabilities such as climate change, and encourage good financial and environmental management of water systems. There is no doubt that this will be a large task, but we cannot shy away from it. The longer we delay, the more costly the investment. This should be a wakeup call that we cannot continue to stand by watching as Flint--and far too many other American communities--are exposed to unsafe drinking water. We must take action now. Again, I commend Mr. Kildee and the co-sponsors for their efforts on this legislation. I thank the Gentleman and his staff for working with me and my staff to ensure this bill will truly increase transparency for communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and look forward to additional opportunities to work in a bipartisan fashion in the remaining months of this Congress on the pressing issue of safe, reliable drinking water for all Americans.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the STREAM Act, which is a dangerous and unnecessary bill that would delay the finalization of the Department of Interior's Stream Protection Rule. This critical rule will improve methods for monitoring and preventing damage to surface and groundwater from mountaintop removal coal mining. Surface mining in the steep slopes of Appalachia has disrupted the biological integrity of an area about the size of Delaware, buried approximately 2,000 miles of streams with mining waste, and contaminated downstream areas with toxic elements. Because of this dangerous practice, people have been drinking the byproducts of coal waste from mountaintop removal for more than two decades. Rather than clean and clear water running out of their faucets, the people of Appalachia are left with orange or black liquid instead. The health problems caused by exposure to these chemicals and heavy metals include cancers, organ failure, and learning disabilities. Not only that, but there are multiple cases of children suffering from asthma, headaches, nausea, and other symptoms likely due to toxic contamination from coal dust. This is environmental injustice. The people of Appalachia should have the right to send their children to a school not threatened by billions of gallons of coal slurry; the right to preserve the streams and valleys that have been part of their way of life; and the right to protect their own land, no matter how much coal might be underneath. I have consistently introduced legislation, the Clean Water Protection Act, which would put a stop to mountaintop removal mining, and I plan to reintroduce the bill in the beginning of this year. I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation before us today that will only perpetuate the dangerous practice of mountaintop removal mining.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, here we are again. It is a new year and a new session of Congress, but House Republicans are yet again up to their old partisan tricks. Today, House Republicans have chosen to spend the first week of 2016 attacking women's health with a radical GOP reconciliation bill which would defund Planned Parenthood and strip away affordable family planning services and lifesaving care for millions of women across the country. Overall, this is the 11th time the House majority has voted to attack women's health in this Congress, including 4 prior votes to defund Planned Parenthood. Meanwhile, it is also the 62nd repeal vote of the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, this reconciliation bill is futile. It is political. It is unfortunate. We have a lot of work to do to help working families in this country, and today's bill reverses great progress in healthcare coverage and access and increases the deficit. In fact, CBO estimates that this extreme legislation would increase the uninsured by about 22 million Americans after 2017. We also know that, if defunded, Planned Parenthood's 2.7 million patients would be left without care, resulting in dangerous consequences. Just look at what is happening in States that have already implemented this radical agenda. In Indiana, such policies led to an HIV epidemic, and in Texas, it left tens of thousands of women without access to contraceptive care and increased incidences of life- threatening at-home abortions. We can't allow the rest of the country to go down this dangerous path, all because of the ideological and political whims of politicians. Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on about the consequences of this bill, but driven by an extreme agenda, Republican policies are harmful, and they have to be rejected. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the 9/11 health provisions that are in the omnibus bill that we will be voting on tomorrow. This is a major bipartisan victory. In our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we had the health portion of the bill, which basically provides specialized health care for those first responders and survivors of 9/11. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell how important this is. In my own State of New Jersey, we have a clinic where we help about 5,000 mostly first responders. They need specialized health care. Their problems get more severe as time goes on. What we are doing with this legislation is making this 9/11 health program and victims compensation program permanent. It was authorized for 5 years. There was a cap on it. The cap has now been removed. We know that those first responders now will get the kind of specialized health care that they need. I cannot emphasize how important this is. I want to thank my colleagues in the New Jersey delegation, the New York delegation, and the Connecticut delegation on both sides of the aisle in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think a lot of people think this is just a health insurance program. That is not what this is about. This is a research program that looks into those specialized diseases that many of these first responders have been impacted by, and every day, we find more rare diseases, more problems that these first responders are coming down with. It is a research program. It is also a treatment and diagnostic program for them. Thankfully, we now are going to have this as a permanent program so that they will not have to worry about what kind of health care they get, and they will not have to worry about where they go. I also want everyone to understand that it doesn't matter where you are in the country. There is a protocol that has been set up under this 9/11 health program so that somebody in Los Angeles, Florida, or wherever they are, can go to the local hospital and be attended to. So, once again, this is a major victory, and I appreciate the fact that I have had the time to talk about it.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Captain Frederick Peters of Edison, New Jersey on his 50th year of service to the Edison Police Auxiliary. Captain Peters' outstanding commitment to the organization and community will be honored at the Auxiliary's Annual Holiday Dinner on December 19, 2015 and it is my privilege to join them in recognizing this remarkable achievement. Captain Peters joined the Edison Police Auxiliary on August 1, 1966. Throughout his 50 years as a volunteer officer, Captain Peters has distinguished himself as a leader, holding positions as Sergeant, Lieutenant and Captain. Currently Captain of Administration, Captain Peters maintains his commitment to serving the organization. Captain Peters has dedicated his life to serving his community and nation. In addition to his service to Edison, Captain Peters is a veteran of the United States Navy. Captain Peters received an honorable discharge from the Navy after 3 years and 2 months of active duty aboard the USS Harwood. From his service to our country to his service to his community, Captain Peters continues to exhibit an unwavering commitment to duty. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is my great honor to pay tribute to Captain Frederick Peters for his 50 years of service to the Edison Police Auxiliary and I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in thanking Captain Peters for his honorable service to our great nation. His remarkable dedication and duty to his community and nation are truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the chairman again. As he pointed out, this truly has been a bipartisan effort. There is also a Senate bill that is bipartisan that this matches, which I think was a strong indication that we can get this bill not only passed here, but also in the Senate and get it to the President's desk. I should also point out that this is one of those occasions, which happens quite a bit, even though people don't realize it, where the industry is actually in cooperation with us, and the cosmetic products industry supports this initiative as well. For all those reasons, let's get the bill passed, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1321, the Microbead- Free Waters Act of 2015. This legislation sets up a strong Federal program to ban the use of plastic microbeads in personal care products. I would like to personally thank Chairman Fred Upton for working with me to introduce and move this important legislation. Plastic microbeads have been in use in cosmetic products, such as face washes and toothpaste, for many years. These tiny plastic beads are often used as exfoliants, removing dead skin cells from the surface of the skin. While these plastic particles are not harmful to the user of the product, in recent years, studies have shown that these tiny particles that are often washed down the drain are making it through the wastewater treatment process and ending up in our Nation's waterways. We must put a stop to this unnecessary and avoidable pollution. Mr. Speaker, studies conducted in the Great Lakes, the world's largest source of freshwater, have turned up alarmingly high levels of microplastic. In addition to contributing to the buildup of plastic pollution in waterways, microbeads can often be mistaken by fish and other organisms as food. I have serious concerns about fish and other aquatic life potentially ingesting these particles and the effect this could have on humans who consume fish that have ingested the plastic. Numerous natural, biodegradable alternatives to plastic microbeads already exist in commerce and product supply chains, including apricot seeds, walnut shells, and pecan shell powder. Several personal care product companies have already announced plans to phase out the use of plastic microbeads in their products in favor of natural exfoliants. Beginning with Illinois in 2014, nine States have enacted some form of a ban on plastic microbeads in personal care products. Yet, in my opinion, we need a national solution. Our Nation's waterways do not always respect State boundaries. In order to put a stop to these plastic particles making their way into our oceans, lakes, and streams, we need to ban plastic microbeads in every State. The legislation before us today is the product of bipartisan input since it has moved through the committee process. Chairman Upton and I have worked to strengthen and clarify a number of provisions in the bill, most notably, by setting up an aggressive timetable for the phaseout of these products, which begins in 2017, earlier than any of the currently enacted State laws. The legislation exclusively bans the use of biodegradable plastic as an alternative ingredient, a loophole that has been discovered in a number of existing State laws. Many of the State laws contain a provision allowing companies to transition to biodegradable plastic as an alternative ingredient, and little is known about the ability of these biodegradable plastics to break down in a marine environment. The language we used to define the scope of this bill was carefully chosen. Plastic microbead is defined as any solid plastic particle that is less than 5 millimeters in size and is used to exfoliate or cleanse the human body. This definition limiting the scope to exfoliating products is also in all nine State-passed laws, and it focuses the prohibition on the products currently containing plastic microbeads that are being washed down the drain. The bill also includes preemption of State laws regulating plastic microbeads and cosmetics. While I am typically not a supporter of preempting State law, the strong Federal standard we have developed is more protective and implementation will occur sooner than in any State law in place. Mr. Speaker, limiting pollution in our Nation's waterways has always been one of my top priorities. It is an issue that helps further creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 after the Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire. While much progress has been made, we must continue our efforts to protect America's waterways. And by banning plastic microbeads in personal care products, we are taking one more step towards a cleaner and healthier environment in America. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Again, thank our Chairman Upton, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we were able to come together to find a longer-term solution for our nation's infrastructure. We cannot keep operating on short-term fixes. Investments in our country's infrastructure need certainty. Though I would have preferred to see greater funding levels across the board, I am pleased to see provisions such as the High Density States Program are protected and funded for the next five years. While I will vote for this bill because it puts Americans back to work and allows our state and transit authorities to do long-term planning for our crumbling infrastructure, I must highlight some of the reasons this bill falls short. The most substantial decreases in injuries and deaths on our roads and highways occurred as a result of major safety advancements, such as requiring seatbelts and airbags in all new cars. Today, we have a vehicle title that does not include such a safety advancement and does little to improve safety. This was a missed opportunity. This bill could have included meaningful safety improvements, such as imminent hazard authority to allow NHTSA to expedite a recall order when necessary, a requirement that ensured recalled used cars are repaired before they are sold, safety standards for rear seat crashworthiness, and the elimination of regional-only recalls that no longer make sense for our increasingly mobile world. And civil penalties should have been higher so that sacrificing safety will not be treated as a ``slap on the wrist'' or just another cost of doing business. Instead, this vehicle title includes provisions that take a step backwards on safety and that could actually lead to more injuries and deaths on our roads. For example, it includes a provision that exempts an unlimited number of replica cars--that is, new cars made to resemble old cars--from vehicle safety laws, clean air requirements, and state emissions testing. It also includes a whistleblower provision that will not encourage, and may effectively discourage, whistleblowers from reporting serious safety problems to the government. And even the promising rental car provision section, which requires rental car companies and auto dealers to repair recalled cars before renting or loaning them to customers, was weakened by excluding those that have a fleet of fewer than 35 vehicles. I am disappointed that the bicameral, bipartisan process failed to craft a vehicle title that actually enhances safety.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maine's amendment adds further specificity to the criteria defining fuel certainty, one of the three requirements that defines reliable generation in section 1107 of the bill. The amendment to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, or PURPA, is already too prescriptive, in my view. The amendments in this legislation to capacity markets under the Federal Power Act in section 1110 and to PURPA in section 1107 are an attempt at micromanaging grid decisions. I am not certain what the gentleman from Maine's amendment would be other than to ensure that no electric generation facility need enter into a contract with a fuel supplier that was any longer than 1 year. I realize some problems have arisen in the New England capacity market, but I doubt this is the best way to address those problems. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to also lend my support to the legislation on grid resiliency. I think it is very important. I appreciate the gentlewoman putting it forward.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, time after time, Democratic Members have come to the floor to strike bad NEPA language from bills, only to be voted down by Republicans who use streamlining as a euphemism for letting polluters do whatever they want. Now they expect us to believe that they are sincere about keeping NEPA strong in one perverse scenario in which they think it could help them. Well, I don't think that passes the smell test. What is more, the amendment undermines the treaty rights of the Lummi Nation and jeopardizes the sovereignty of all tribes with rights to natural resources. Mr. Chairman, tomorrow we will be here on the House floor to vote on the conference report for a highway bill which includes, over the opposition of many Democrats, sweeping exemptions from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. I have no doubt that both of the sponsors of this amendment support those exemptions and will vote to pass the bill without a second thought about the fact that it short- circuits NEPA review for many, many infrastructure projects. I am shocked to see them standing here with straight faces arguing that, when it benefits them and their friends in the coal industry, the NEPA process should be thorough and complete. It is a level of audacity that I think is almost laughable. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this damaging and disingenuous amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.