Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The Governors are the four commissioners. The Governor of Pennsylvania is the chairman of the commission. They may delegate to someone to actually go to the meetings, but they are making these decisions. I don't understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that we should take away the rights of the Governors who are on these commissions to make the decision that was a 4-0 decision. If they decide that they want something different in the Delaware watershed than in their individual States, that is their prerogative, but they made this decision. They voted 4-0. Again, I don't see the point, and I think it is really egregious for us to take away the powers of the Governors, as they are elected by the people of the four States to make this decision about fracking within their watershed. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, a common refrain that I hear from Republicans is that unilateral action by the United States to reduce greenhouse gases would harm our economy and wouldn't move the needle on reducing global emissions. The core of this argument is that if we are going to address climate change, we need to coordinate an international response. Of course, this argument completely falls apart when you take a look at the actions of the House Republicans. Many cheered as the previous administration removed the United States from the Paris Agreement. Exiting the largest international agreement to combat global climate change not only weakened our diplomatic standing abroad, but it made it abundantly clear that Republicans don't care about addressing climate change. Now, thankfully, President Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement, putting that embarrassing chapter behind us, but it appears that House Republicans want to go back to burying their heads in the sand when it comes to combating climate change, as was made clear by this amendment. This amendment would repeal section 115 of the Clean Air Act, which provides EPA with a tool to address air pollution while promoting international cooperation to combat climate change. As my Republican colleagues should know by now, air pollution does not respect boundaries, whether these are State or international. Section 115 provides the EPA administrator the authority to set limits on an air pollutant that is harming public health and welfare in another country as long as the other country grants reciprocal rights to the United States. The gentleman's amendment would remove this discretionary authority, gutting our ability to cooperate with our neighbors. We have agreements with Canada and with Mexico, and we show leadership with the international community by working with our neighbors to try to deal with air pollution. Climate change is a global problem. We need to work with other nations like we worked with Canada and Mexico and provide the leadership to encourage international engagements to tackle this crisis. I have to say: I don't believe the Republican majority wants to act on climate crisis internationally or domestically. Case in point, the polluters over people act we are dealing with today. It attempts to repeal popular provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act: The greenhouse gas reduction fund, the methane emissions reduction program, and $4.5 billion in home electrification rebates. Now, House Democrats took historic action to combat the climate crisis by passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which included unparalleled investments in climate and clean energy. Not a single House Republican voted for it, but if we can't act domestically and we can't act in coordination with our neighbors, even Canada and Mexico, what are we going to do to address the threat caused by the climate crisis? According to this amendment, the answer is apparently nothing. We are not going to do anything domestically. We are not going to do anything with our neighbors. We are not going to do anything internationally. We are going to do nothing. I just think that is unacceptable. At a time of real crisis, as highlighted by the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, we should empower EPA to combat dangerous climate change and strongly encourage other nations to do the same. We shouldn't be taking any tools off the table, and that is what this amendment does. It takes the tool off the table. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I frankly don't understand the purpose of this amendment. Last spring, FERC issued an updated policy statement, an interim guidance, detailing how the Commission should treat new applications for natural gas pipelines and account for greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission, a month later, clarified that both documents were drafts and that it would seek further input and comments on the drafts. That is it. These documents are not final rules or orders from the Commission. They are not law. They are a draft, draft documents that the Commission has put out to solicit industry and stakeholder feedback, and that is the way we want the government to work for it to be responsive. Withdrawing these documents from draft status, which is what I think the gentleman's amendment would do, would have no impact on any policy and, instead, I think, would just create further confusion and possibly release FERC from the duty to consider industry's comments on the draft. It may be that the real reason that the Republicans offered this amendment is that they don't think that FERC should consider greenhouse gas emissions. They don't think that these emissions should matter when FERC makes a decision about whether or not to authorize a new natural gas pipeline. This doesn't change the law. The law currently requires FERC to consider the greenhouse gas impacts of a certificate it grants. Multiple Federal court rulings have held that the agency must think about these issues based on the statute, and the interim policy statement was meant to create certainty for industry on how the Commission would do that. Instead, Republicans want to send FERC and, frankly, all parts of the Federal Government back into confusion. If you want to say that FERC shouldn't consider greenhouse gases--I am not in favor of that--you should amend the statute to say that. By simply saying that these draft rules should be withdrawn, that is going to tell industry, how do you deal with this? How are they going to know what to do if there are no rules, no policy, no input from them whatsoever? I think it would be wrong to change the statute to say that they shouldn't take greenhouse gas impacts into consideration, but that is not what this amendment does. This amendment says to just get rid of these drafts, and then industry would have no input into any of this. I don't think industry would support that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, again, FERC is not radical. There is a statute that says that FERC has to consider greenhouse gas emissions. They put out a policy statement about how they are going to do that and asked for the industry to look at it and give their input. All this amendment does is to say to put that aside. Then how does the FERC--do they just issue another draft saying here is another way to look at it? I just think this is very confusing. I do think FERC should take into consideration greenhouse gas emissions. They are required to by the law. Unless the gentleman is going to change that, it makes no sense to say that they can't get industry input about how they do that. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Borough of Metuchen and the Metuchen Downtown Alliance on its selection as a 2023 Great American Main Street of the Year recipient. I am proud to join with Metuchen Downtown Alliance members, borough officials, and residents in celebrating this achievement. Since its launch in 1995, the Great American Main Street Award (GAMSA) program has recognized over one hundred Main Street communities that have made significant improvements to their business districts. Finalists exemplify Main Street America's mission to revitalize downtowns through thoughtful, innovative, and collaborative measures. This year, the Metuchen Downtown Alliance was selected as one of three winners and joins only two other New Jersey communities in receiving this designation. Established in 2016, the Metuchen Downtown Alliance (MDA) is a volunteer-based non-profit organization led by its Executive Director, Dawn Mackey. In seven short years, MDA has transformed Metuchen's downtown and attracted more businesses, residents, and visitors to the area. The business district has seen its vacancy rate drop from 20% in 2016 to an all-time low, single-digit vacancy rate today. The diverse shops and restaurants, along with a wide array of programs and events, reflect the diversity and inclusive environment of the greater community. Through its initiatives, investments, and partnerships, MDA has revitalized Main Street, improved streetscapes and adapted to changing needs, while maintaining the historic charm of the town. From the creation of Town Plaza to the ongoing development of an Arts District, Metuchen continues its growth. The efforts of the borough and MDA underscore how strong leadership, community involvement, and targeted improvements can maintain sustained economic vitality and prosperity. Mr. Speaker, it is truly a joyous occasion to recognize the success of the Metuchen Downtown Alliance and the leadership of the Borough of Metuchen. This honor celebrates the resiliency and dedication of the community and I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in applauding this recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Borough of Little Silver, New Jersey on the 100th anniversary of its incorporation. It is my honor to join with its officials and residents in celebration of this historic milestone. A part of Shrewsbury Township until 1923, Little Silver has evolved from farmland, woods, and saltwater marshes to a bustling suburb of diverse restaurants, specialty shops, and small businesses. With its location on the water and its proximity to New York City, the area has attracted visitors from the north that have transformed Little Silver from a seasonal resort to the community it is today. Despite its development over the years, Little Silver has maintained its distinct charm and character. Tracing its history back before its incorporation, the borough has several historical landmarks including its railroad station, post office (which now serves as a museum), and Sickles Market, that began as a farm stand over 100 years ago and is still in operation today. In the 1800s, John T. Lovett opened a nursery that became the largest employer in the area and well known across the country, supplying national retail businesses such as Sears Roebuck. Many of the town's residents can trace their roots back generations. One of the oldest sites in the borough, the Parker Homestead, was inhabited by the same family for 300 years, who were original settlers of the area. In its 100th year, the borough is governed by Mayor Robert Neff and council members Kevin Brennan, Chris Smith, Donald Galante, Michael Holzapfel, Doug Christensen, and Stephanie Brannagan. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in marking the 100th anniversary of the Borough of Little Silver and celebrating its rich history.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to commemorate the life of former Piscataway Councilman Jim Bullard. Councilman Bullard passed away on February 15, 2023, after a life filled with numerous personal and professional accomplishments. Throughout his life, Councilman Bullard exhibited hard work and an interest in learning. The son of James and Eileen Bullard, Councilman Bullard was born and raised in the Bahamas. He graduated high school at the age of 12 and worked various jobs where he consistently demonstrated character and leadership before moving to the United States to continue his education. He received his associates degree from Miami-Dade Community College and his bachelor's degree from Lowell Technological Institute (UMass Lowell). He worked as an electrical engineer for RCA, Honeywell, and AT&T Bell Labs. He remained at AT&T for 29 years until his retirement in 2006. Elected to represent Ward 2 on the Piscataway Township Council in 2010, Councilman Bullard served three terms, until December 2022, and led the Council as President in 2013. Throughout his tenure, Councilman Bullard promoted senior services, recreational programs for children, and improvements to parks. A long-time advocate for seniors, Councilman Bullard served on the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission and the Office of Aging & Disabled Services Advisory Council and helped start the Senior Buddy Program which partners high school seniors with senior citizens to improve computer skills. In addition to his work with the senior population, Councilman Bullard volunteered his time with the Piscataway Little League, Piscataway Community Television, the Metlar-Bodine House Museum, and the Piscataway Recreation Board, among others. He was deservingly recognized for his efforts by various organizations, including the Jersey Access Group, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, and the Middle Atlantic Regional Babe Ruth Baseball Hall of Fame. Councilman Bullard received a heart transplant in 2006. As he did throughout his life, Councilman Bullard approached transplant surgery with determination and a positive attitude, recovering quickly and devoting time to supporting organ donation programs and patients. He helped raise funds for organ donation for Hahnemann University and served as President of the Second Chance Heart Transplant Chapter and Support Group. Councilman Bullard leaves behind a loving family, including his beloved wife of 45 years, Lois, their children, grandchildren, and his siblings. His generous spirit was a joy to everyone he met, and he will be remembered fondly by all those whose lives he impacted. Mr. Speaker, Councilman Bullard was a dedicated public servant and an active member of the community. He was deeply committed to serving the residents of Piscataway and his leadership and enthusiasm will truly be missed. I know I join with his family, friends, colleagues, and community in paying tribute to his memory.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the dedication of the Sgt. Jack McGreevey Memorial Park in Carteret, New Jersey. I join with borough officials, employees, residents, and the McGreevey family in paying tribute to the life and service of Sgt. Jack McGreevey. A Marine Corps veteran who served in Guam, China, and Japan during WWII and as a Sergeant and Drill Instructor during the Korean War, Sgt. McGreevey was a fierce advocate for veterans. In his capacity as a Legislative Aide for state Senator Joseph Vitale, Speaker Craig Coughlin, and Assemblywoman Yvonne Lopez, Sgt. McGreevey worked with local veterans to secure benefits. In addition, through his service with various veterans' organizations, Sgt. McGreevey was an effective voice on behalf of the veteran community and fought to promote their priorities and support their needs. Sgt. McGreevey was a friend to everyone. His affable demeanor left an impact on everyone he met. He exemplified honor, integrity, and professionalism throughout his life, and I am confident his commitment to service will continue to inspire others. Mr. Speaker, once again, it is my honor to commemorate this dedication ceremony in remembrance of Sgt. Jack McGreevey. Sgt. McGreevey honorably served our Nation and the veterans' community, and his selflessness, duty, and civic engagement are truly deserving of this recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would urge support for this bill. Once again, it did pass the last time in Congress. We hope we can get it to the Senate. It is important to have a nationwide standard for notarization. Mr. Speaker, 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 support of H.R. 1059, the SECURE Notarization Act. Today, thanks to modern technology, we can oftentimes cash a check, book a flight, and lock and unlock our doors all from the convenience of our smartphone. But that same convenience does not exist for getting something notarized in many States. People are often required to go through the notary process, the process of authenticating the signatory to a document for wills, mortgages, and purchasing or transferring valuable assets. Today, many States will require a person to physically appear before a notary public in order to complete this process. Now, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person notarizations were not only inconvenient, but they also posed a health risk. In-person notarization requirements forced far too many consumers to choose between potentially exposing themselves to COVID-19 and purchasing a house or updating their wills. To protect consumers and commerce, dozens of States enacted laws or took emergency actions to permit electronic and remote online notarizations. These notarizations allowed the consumer and the notary to execute notarizations through secure audiovisual communications. As our lives have returned to a new normal, it has become apparent that electronic and remote online notarizations are a valuable tool for facilitating commerce and making these services more accessible. Such tools are particularly important for vulnerable populations like the elderly, underserved communities, and others with mobility issues or lacking access to reliable and inexpensive transportation. But State action alone cannot assure universal access to electronic and remote online notarizations that meet robust security standards and consumer protections. Our Nation lacks the universal standard for electronic and remote online notarizations. As a result, there is no standard that permits nationwide use of electronic and remote online notarizations. There is no standard that creates robust security requirements and there is no standard that ensures electronic and remote online notarizations are valid nationwide. That is why I am proud to support the SECURE Notarization Act. This legislation will transition notarizations to the 21st century without sacrificing security, making the process more convenient and safer for the American public. Last Congress, this bill was unanimously reported out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and passed the House with broad bipartisan support. I commend Representative Dean for her leadership on this bipartisan legislation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), the Democratic sponsor of this bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 538, the Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act. The Internet of Things revolution has ushered in a new age of convenience and efficiency for the American public. Smart thermostats can save consumers money by tracking and reporting home energy use and making recommendations about adjusting temperatures to meet consumers' needs. Smart refrigerators can provide recipe suggestions based on the contents of the refrigerator. Smart ovens can scan food to automatically optimize the cooking process. Smart coffee makers can brew a fresh pot of coffee just as you are getting out of bed. The American consumer is embracing these technologies. Today, the average American home has 11 Internet of Things, or IOT, devices. Over a quarter of consumers have at least one home automation device. These are technologies that allow consumers to interconnect and control their various IOT devices from one platform. Congress should also embrace these technologies, but we must ensure that the IOT revolution does not come at the expense of consumers' privacy. Troubling reports have uncovered that some IOT devices may record images or audio without the user's awareness. Researchers have revealed that some IOT devices may accidentally record users as many as 19 times a day, collecting as much as 43 seconds of audio each time. Robot vacuums have taken intimate images of unsuspecting consumers which eventually ended up online. Mr. Speaker, we must take action to combat these threats to people's right to privacy. That is why I am proud to support the Informing Consumers about Smart Devices Act. This legislation will require manufacturers of IOT devices to alert consumers that a device includes a camera or microphone if a consumer would not reasonably expect the device to contain such features. Last Congress, this bill was unanimously reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee and passed the House with broad bipartisan support. I thank Representative Seth Moulton for his leadership on this issue, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. While this bill addresses significant privacy concerns, it is also important that I note that we have to recommit to adopting a comprehensive privacy framework that protects all Americans and provides heightened protections for our children nationwide. The American Data Privacy and Protection Act, which I authored last Congress with Chairwoman Rodgers, would do just that. It would ensure that consumers, wherever they reside in this country, will have meaningful control over their personal information and that children will have heightened privacy protections. It also provides clear and consistent rules of the road on privacy and data security to innovators, entrepreneurs, and small tech companies. I appreciate that we are advancing today's legislation on a bipartisan basis. I know this legislation is important, but I also look forward to working with Chairwoman Rodgers to pass the American Data Privacy and Protection Act on a bipartisan basis in this Congress, as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), the Democratic sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. Mr. Speaker, I will just close by saying I do think this is an important bill for consumers, and I thank the sponsors. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1108 to extend the authority of the Federal Communications Commission to auction commercial spectrum. Our Nation's airwaves are one of our country's most important natural resources. Indeed, radio waves are a critical component in building next-generation wireless networks and delivering high-speed services to American consumers. As such, radio waves and the networks they support can make a meaningful difference in Americans' lives by expanding the reach of telehealth services, extending learning beyond the classroom, and providing critical communications for public safety activities. To achieve these notable goals, we must continue to expand the ability of commercial users to access our airwaves. H.R. 1108 provides a short-term extension of the Federal Communications Commission's auction authority for roughly 2 months from its expiration date this coming March. It is essential that we extend this authority. Congress has never allowed this spectrum authority to lapse, and to maintain our Nation's global leadership in wireless innovation, we must ensure that consistent management and oversight of spectrum remains intact, which includes spectrum auctions. For years these auctions have efficiently made our airwaves available for commercial use. Importantly, though, even with the passage of this legislation, our work will not be done. We must spend these next 2 months working with our Senate colleagues to pass a bipartisan spectrum agreement that can get to the President's desk before the FCC's auction authority expires again. The Energy and Commerce Committee has traditionally worked in a bipartisan fashion on key telecommunication matters, and I commend Chairwoman Rodgers for continuing this tradition with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this timely bill in a bipartisan manner, and I hope the Senate will soon follow. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation to extend this spectrum auction authority. I urge all of my colleagues to support it in a bipartisan manner, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, which once again prioritizes politics over science at the expense of the health of the American people. To date, COVID-19 has killed more than 1 million of our fellow Americans. Families have been changed forever. Fortunately, today we have vaccines, tests, and treatments that have put the darkest days of the pandemic behind us, but we can't forget that COVID still kills 500 Americans every day. Variants of concern continue to emerge, and therefore we must be vigilant and data driven in monitoring any uptick in cases. We must follow the science and the guidance of our public health experts. We are not done with COVID; or, rather, COVID is not done with us. Ending all of our protections and public health measures without a reasoned discussion is downright dangerous. Unfortunately, that is exactly what House Republicans continue to do week after week, bringing bills to the floor that are nothing but political stunts that put politics over science. This is the latest dangerous stunt. H.R. 185 would terminate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's order that requires proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign air passengers entering the United States. Vaccination is protective against severe illness and death from COVID-19. It reduces the impact of COVID-19 on our healthcare infrastructure, including hospital capacity and healthcare provider staffing. That is why the CDC order was put in place and why I continue to believe that our public health experts are best positioned to make these kinds of determinations. This bill would permit unvaccinated individuals to freely enter the United States, even as variants continue to emerge around the world, potentially increasing the risk of circulating new variants of concern. This could potentially stretch our healthcare resources just as our hospitals, providers, and public health infrastructure try to rebuild. In addition, H.R. 185 would also prohibit the CDC from issuing any successor or subsequent orders to require COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers in the future as well. This is dangerous and ties the hands of our public health experts to the political whims of the most ideologically extreme in a way that makes our Nation less safe and more vulnerable in the future. Imagine if a dangerous new variant that was highly contagious appeared somewhere in the world. This Republican bill would prevent the CDC from restricting people from entering the Nation who are not vaccinated. This simply defies logic, but it is, unfortunately, what happens when you have an extreme Republican majority that is more interested in rushing these bills to the floor as political stunts without any consideration of the implications. There have been no committee hearings to hear from experts on what this bill could mean for the American people, and without any input from Democratic Members, who remain willing to have reasoned discussions about moving beyond the immediate emergency of COVID-19. This is also the second bill in just 2 weeks in which Republicans have sought to question the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines, despite the unequivocal scientific consensus that COVID-19 vaccination is protective against severe illness and death. Mr. Chairman, I have now sat through two Rules Committee debates and two floor debates in the House of Representatives where some Republicans have sought to undermine vaccine confidence and contend that vaccines aren't safe and effective. This is extremely dangerous. It is also deeply disappointing that we have to continue to have these discussions instead of coming together to encourage all Americans to get their vaccinations to protect themselves and their loved ones against severe illness. That is why I am also disappointed that the Rules Committee and its Republican majority barred consideration of an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) which would have made clear that nothing in this bill shall be construed to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. This would have sent a strong message for us to come together on a bipartisan basis and make clear that this bill is not intended to disparage vaccines and that the House of Representatives stands in support of science and reason. It is telling that the Rules Committee decided not to make this amendment in order. It is a sad sign that my Republican colleagues continue to cater to the most extremist members of their Conference who would rather spread COVID misinformation than come together to encourage vaccination as our best path out of this pandemic. Mr. Chairman, Democrats understand that we are entering a new phase of our response to COVID-19 and believe it is reasonable to reconsider some of the pandemic-related policies and whether they are still necessary. Instead of rushing partisan bills like this to the floor, we are willing to have bipartisan conversations on a path forward. However, we will never--and I stress never--call into question the safety and efficacy of vaccines. We will not undermine the expertise of our public health officials or put politics over science. Unfortunately, this bill does just that. For that reason, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chair, again, I am not surprised, I guess, but when the gentleman from Kentucky talks about human rights and then he gives the lists of the countries that don't mandate vaccines that include Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, and China, these are not countries that care much about human rights. As I said before in the Rules Committee, Republicans always talk about America first. We have the best healthcare and public health experts in the world, in my opinion. The CDC is so much better than any of the healthcare organizations, in my opinion, certainly better than our adversaries like Russia, Cuba, or China, but even for the other countries that are mentioned. I understand the World Health Organization is out there, but I think we should be listening to the public health experts in our country and not worrying about some of these other countries that are adversaries. I would be very concerned about people coming from places like Russia, China, and Cuba not being vaccinated because of the lack of attention to public health in those countries. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier), a member of our Energy and Commerce Committee.