Keith Rothfus

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, on April 26, the world lost an extraordinary man. As a political prisoner in China for 19 years, from 1960 to 1979, Harry Wu endured torture, forced labor, and severe hunger. It was not until 3 years after Mao Zedong's death that Harry Wu was released. His alleged crime? As a 23-year-old student, Wu had criticized the Soviet invasion of Hungary and was given, according to Wu, a life sentence of labor, torture, and the teachings of Mao. After being freed, he devoted his life to exposing the horrors of the so-called reform through labor camps. After moving to the United States in 1985, Wu began returning to China to secretly document the labor camps, known as laogai. His work was showcased both on CBS and on the BBC in the early 1990s and continued through his Laogai Research Foundation and museum in Washington. He testified before Congress on China's unfulfilled promises of reform, forced abortions and sterilizations, Internet censorship, and religious repression. We can honor his tremendous work by ensuring the truths he revealed are not forgotten and by continuing to defend human rights in China and across the world.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from Indiana for her leadership on this very important piece of legislation as well as the chairman and ranking member of the committee for working together to bring it to the floor today. The United States is being ravaged by skyrocketing levels of prescription opioid and heroin abuse. This brutal epidemic has accounted for more than 28,000 American deaths in 2014, destroying families and devastating local communities alike. My constituents in western Pennsylvania have been particularly hard hit. In the past two decades, there has been a 470 percent increase in drug overdose deaths. The vast majority of these have been heroin and opioid related. Two weeks ago, at a local hospital in my district, five overdoses were treated in 1 day alone. In February, the same facility treated 20 overdoses in just 2 days. We need meaningful and evidence-based solutions to combat this scourge. I have worked to help develop those solutions as part of the Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin Epidemic and by holding roundtables with stakeholders in my district. I strongly believe that the legislation we are considering today is another step forward in that process by creating an interagency task force to review and update best practices for pain management and prescribing pain medication. As part of its work, the task force will consider various types of data and practices. For example, it must consider the existence and availability of different classes of opioids, including those with safety measures such as abuse deterrent technology. It must also consider how high-risk populations are managed by medical professionals. The legislation has been entirely silent on the issue of naloxone, however. Thus, the amendment that I offered with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) simply seeks to have the task force take into consideration the practice of coprescribing this lifesaving drug as part of its work. Naloxone has the ability to revive a victim who has suffered an overdoes within minutes. It is both safe and effective and has been used successfully to counteract more than 26,000 overdoses between 1996 and 2014. First responders who have seen what naloxone can do have referred to it as the miracle drug. The American Medical Association and many community, State, and national groups have supported coprescribing naloxone to patients who are taking opioids as a critical part of the solution to the rising epidemic of opioid overdose-related deaths. Considering the practice of coprescribing naloxone, particularly for high-risk populations or when other avenues of treatment have been tried and failed, it is an essential part of addressing the opioid and heroin epidemic. By reviewing and updating best practices with respect to coprescribing naloxone, the interagency task force can ensure that health professionals at all levels, both inside and outside of government, are fully informed when prescribing and treating patients. Simply put, Americans who are struggling with opioid and heroin addiction cannot be treated if they lose their lives to drug overdose. It is essential that we get naloxone into the hands that need it the most in a safe and effective manner. My amendment would ensure that the task force takes a close look at this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, to close, increased access to naloxone, particularly for patients who are at high risk, has been identified as one of the most powerful tools for reducing the number of opioid and heroin-related overdose deaths. Let's ensure that our health professionals are fully informed of this option when prescribing and treating patients. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and thank her and Mr. Guinta for this very important evening where we are talking about a plague on our country. I am pleased to stand here today to join my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in resolve to find real solutions for the heroin and opioid epidemic hitting our communities and our Nation. Our Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin Epidemic is actively bringing together law enforcement, treatment, and recovery experts to share critical information that has been helping us to better understand the issue. This House is working on crafting better laws that will help law enforcement tackle this problem so that treatment and recovery professionals can effectively offer lifesaving treatments to those currently suffering from addiction. Our words must be followed by action. We are working with all levels of government, from the Federal down to the local level, as well as the private sector and nonprofits to fix this problem. For example, I introduced the Co-Prescribing Saves Lives Act with my Democratic colleague, Congressman Bill Keating, which would encourage physicians to co-prescribe naloxone alongside opioid prescriptions and make naloxone more widely available in Federal health settings. Naloxone is a safe and effective antidote to opioid-related overdoses, including heroin and fentanyl, and is used as a critical tool in preventing fatal opioid overdose, having reversed more than 26,000 overdoses between 1996 and 2014. I have cosponsored and supported several other bills, such as the ones we are working on this week, to advance stronger, up-to-date solutions to this brutal epidemic. But it is the human side of the story that motivates us. Every district has their stories, and I commend the families that are speaking out so that others don't experience the pain and loss that they have. Vonda Probst from Friedens, Pennsylvania, lost her son Jared Carter to a heroin overdose 2 years ago. Jared enjoyed motorcycle riding, four wheeling, fixing old cars, and being outdoors. He would have turned 30 last summer. There are far too many stories like Jared's in Pennsylvania and throughout the Nation, stories about lives full of potential and value that are cut short by drug abuse. Chad Schilling was another individual from my district whose family has spoken out. Chad died last month at the age of 32. He was the third member of his high school's 2001 football team. ``It can happen to anybody,'' Jeff Schilling, Chad's dad, said. ``I don't care if you're poor, you're homeless, you're wealthy, it can happen to you. So get help.'' And then there is Tony Swalligan. As stated in an editorial in Johnstown's Tribune-Democrat, Kathi, Tony's mother, wants others to know that she is both grieving and angry that heroin claimed Tony, her baby, the youngest of 10, who was just 23 years old. She said: ``As a woman of faith, I'm taking this to God and asking him to damn heroin. That's how I feel: Damn heroin.'' ``You only have to come over to the funeral home,'' Tony's mother said, ``to know there's absolutely nothing fun about heroin. And it's not just themselves they're killing. They're doing this to their whole family. You think, `Ooo, I want to get high.' But you're killing your whole family.'' His mother said: ``What part of `heroin is highly addictive' don't our young people understand? Do they all think they're 6 feet tall and bulletproof?'' It is these stories that are all too often, but we must, we can find effective solutions to the opioid epidemic for these families. I am confident, by working together, we can turn the tide and save lives. I thank, again, my colleagues for organizing this very important hour.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, on April 29, a natural gas pipeline exploded in Salem Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, immediately destroying one home, injuring a resident, and forcing the evacuation of a dozen other homes. I rise to thank the first responders who selflessly and swiftly arrived on the scene: Forbes Road Volunteer Fire Department Chief Bob Rosatti led incident command during the crisis, and he is to be commended for the tremendous job he did. In addition to Chief Rosatti's department, the following volunteer fire departments also responded: Slickville, White Valley, Export, Crabtree, Greensburg, Delmont, Hannastown, Grandview, New Alexandria, Jeannette, Harrison City, Washington Township, Saltsburg, Tunnelton, and Sardis. These departments were joined by seven other local, county, and State agencies. The firefighters, police, and emergency teams who choose these selfless and courageous professions make our communities safer, better places to live, and for this, we should all be grateful.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2901, the Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act. I am a proud cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, which represents a positive step towards much-needed flood insurance reform. This legislation provides clarity to States and private insurers and, in doing so, clears the way for competitive firms to play a much greater role in the flood insurance market. For my constituents back home, the 705,000 western Pennsylvanians who sent me to Washington to look out for their interests, this means more choices, more competitive rates, and more innovation. Passing this legislation would be a win for western Pennsylvanians eager for change. Although some tend to think of flood insurance as a concern for coastal States like Florida, Louisiana, and Texas, many Pennsylvanians are closely monitoring the ongoing debate about the future of flood insurance. Many of my constituents live alongside rivers and streams and in valleys with a history of flooding. My district is also home to many older cities and towns like Johnstown that are filled with properties that predate the National Flood Insurance Program. People have lived in these places for generations and have a deep sense of community. Rightly, my constituents who live in these flood-prone areas worry about the future availability of affordable flood insurance options in the marketplace. They want to remain in their homes, in the places where multiple generations of their families have lived and worked and built lasting connections with their neighbors. My constituents need access to affordable flood insurance. As this debate continues over the next year, I will make sure that their concerns are addressed. H.R. 2901 is a strong step in the right direction as we seek to reform Federal flood insurance policy. I hope that H.R. 2901 will receive the same broad, bipartisan support it received in the Financial Services Committee when it comes up for a vote later today. I look forward to working with my colleagues at the committee and on both sides of the aisle as work continues on flood insurance reform. Honoring the Life of Norman F. Kyle

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank Norman Kyle, an Aliquippa native who passed away at the age of 95 this past Sunday, for his brave service to our Nation. Norman served as a U.S. Army infantryman during World War II and, after being captured by the Nazis, was a POW for over 700 days. He was born on August 24, 1920, in Aliquippa and was retired from J&L Steel Corp., where he worked for more than 40 years. Norman was a John Wayne fan, and he collected more than 100 trains. In addition to his parents, Norman and Sadie Kyle, he was preceded in death by his wife, Ruth Kyle, two sons, Robert and Kenneth Kyle, and a grandson, John Scheeler, Jr. Norman is survived by his 3 daughters, 9 grandchildren, 16 great- grandchildren, and 5 great-great-grandchildren. It was men like Norman Kyle who made their generation great and who were a big part of making this country the leader of the world. His life, legacy, and service will not be forgotten.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many accomplishments of the Honorable James Roddey, a dedicated husband, father, and grandfather, successful businessman, public servant, and United States marine. Jim, a native of North Carolina, found opportunity where generations of Americans have--western Pennsylvania. Last month, Jim stepped down as chairman of the Allegheny County Republican Committee. His tenure as county GOP chairman was the latest act in a career that included his historic election as Allegheny County's first-ever county executive in 1999. Throughout his successful business career, Jim applied his acumen and heart of service to community development and the nonprofit sector. Undoubtedly, Jim developed many of the values he applied in his career from his Marine Corps days, where he reached the rank of captain. Jim's peers and colleagues admire him for his ability to get the job done. He approached his career with exuberance and unmitigated diligence, creating a lasting impact on western Pennsylvania. I wish him as well as his wife of more than 60 years, Elin, all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the Aliquippa Quips boys basketball team for claiming the PIAA Class AA title after an undefeated season with a perfect 30-0 record. Their extraordinary accomplishment makes the entire community proud. It is history in the making. They're only the 13th WPIAL team to ever win a state basketball title with a perfect record, and the 33rd undefeated boys basketball state champion. This is Aliquippa's first state title since 1997, and their first undefeated state championship since 1949. Athletics endow young people with many of the virtues and skills they will need to succeed not only on the court, but in every other endeavor. These young men are being rewarded for their hard work, dedication, athleticism, and team unity. I wish the seniors luck in their future endeavors, and I extend my best wishes to the coaches and the team for another outstanding season next year.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. So the gentleman from Texas will control the time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who has long been an advocate for the types of freedoms I have been talking about, religious freedom, and the first right that we have been talking about, the right to life. I yield to Mr. Gohmert.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, next week, the Supreme Court will hear the most important religious freedom case in decades. It is Zubik v. Burwell. The purpose of this Special Order is to talk a little bit about religious freedom and what is at stake here. Before I begin, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has long been a champion of human rights across the globe and understands the importance of religious freedom and is also the chair of our Pro-Life Caucus.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, again, for his long leadership on this very important subject of protecting life and protecting conscience. He mentioned something about the government deciding what is or is not a sincerely held belief. It has been long established, Mr. Speaker, that that is up to the religious adherent-to-be, making that decision, not the government, not the government to interpose itself and tell an individual what is a sincerely held belief for the individual. That is a fundamental freedom that the individual has. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), who also has concerns about what is at stake.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman LaMalfa for those observations and to hear about some personal interactions with the Little Sisters of the Poor and the tremendous work that they do. We see the Little Sisters of the Poor at my parish about once a year. They are the most unthreatening individuals you would imagine. They stand at the door. Some of them are older, so it appears that some of them may have a little bit of arthritis as they are bent over holding a basket. And in that basket is a request for donations. They beg. They beg for people to support their work, which is caring for the most vulnerable people in our society, the elderly poor. We haven't gotten here in a vacuum, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very important for us to take a look at the historical context of religious freedom and its importance. Freedom of religion is fundamental in our country. An interesting note, here in my pocket is the Constitution, and religious freedom is literally the very first freedom mentioned in our Constitution. It is in the Bill of Rights. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' The very first freedom mentioned. After freedom of religion, there is freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. But the very first freedom mentioned is the freedom of religion. It is interesting because we also talk about rights in our society. As a footnote, our founding documents--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution--talk about rights. But the very first right in one of our founding documents is the right to life. In our Declaration, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' The very first right in our founding documents is the right to life, and the very first freedom in our founding documents is the freedom of religion. Why was it so important? Because there is a long history, Mr. Speaker, of how religion has been treated throughout the world. You can go back to the beginnings of the development of the Christian faith in Europe where we saw this religious sect begin in the Holy Land and then spread to the capital of the Roman Empire. It was the Roman emperors who first persecuted the people of faith, who had the Christian faith. We saw how the emperors forced early Christians to violate their conscience. It might not seem as any big deal. All they wanted was for individuals to burn a little pinch of incense before the Roman gods because the emperors were concerned about threats to the empire; and they thought if they could appease the Roman gods, if they had everybody in the empire doing that little pinch, it was not going to hurt anybody. In fact, a lot of Christians went along with it. But there were those who did not because they could not do that in their conscience. And what happened to them? They were murdered. They were murdered because they did not burn that pinch of incense to the Roman gods. So we look back through history and we understand now that it was wrong for an all-powerful government to go after people of conscience's sincerely held beliefs. We all recognize that as abhorrent right now. But it wasn't just 2,000 years ago or 1,800 years ago, Mr. Speaker, that we saw these persecutions happening. There was a gentleman in 16th century England, in 1535. We know him now in history as ``a man for all seasons.'' Thomas More, an extraordinary intellect, was a poet, lawyer, father, husband, Speaker of the House of Commons, chancellor. Mr. More was a man of serious faith and serious conscience. He had a very good relationship with his friend, King Henry VIII, but King Henry had a problem. He had made an arrangement to have special permission granted where he could marry the widow of his brother who had died, Catherine of Aragon. But after some time, Henry was concerned that he did not have a male heir that he wanted to leave the throne to. So he thought he needed another wife. We know the course of history: He divorced Catherine, and he married Anne Boleyn. He wanted the people of England to accept that. He knew that his dynasty was at stake, so he required people to accept that. Thomas More, in conscience, could not. He was jailed in the Tower of London. His books were taken away. He refused to speak on the matter because he thought that silence would protect him. Then there was perjury, and he was convicted of treason for opposing the king, and he was beheaded, all because he was following the dictates of his conscience. This was the context, Mr. Speaker, in which Western history was developing. And as the Renaissance was happening--and More was part of the English Renaissance--and as we went into the later 16th century and the 17th century, the development of thinking on religious freedom--and there were religious wars throughout Europe, and all these minorities seemed to be getting oppressed by the government--a number of sects decided that there would be a better place where they could practice their faith in conscience, and that place was the New World across the ocean. It took a lot of trouble to get to the New World--dangerous new territory, treacherous crossing, unknowns--but these were people who were looking to build a city upon a hill. We know the stories of Pilgrims, who sought religious freedom, and of, later, the Puritans. My own State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was established as a colony where people of conscience would be protected. William Penn, in his Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges in 1701, wrote: ``No people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyments of civil liberties, if abridged of the freedom of their conscience as to their religious profession and worship.'' Penn, himself, was jailed for his exercising his conscience, as he wrote from Newgate Prison in 1670: ``By liberty of conscience, we understand not only a mere liberty of the mind but the exercise of ourselves in a visible way of worship, upon our believing it to be indispensably required at our hands, that if we neglect it for fear or favor of any mortal man, we sin and incur divine wrath.'' All of these individuals were seeking protection, were seeking a place where they could exercise their freedom of conscience. Maybe that, Mr. Speaker, is why the freedom of religion is the first freedom mentioned in our Bill of Rights. Our Founders, the Fathers of our country, understood the importance of religion. President George Washington remarked in his farewell address that religion and morality are ``the firmest props of the duties of men and citizens'' and ``the indispensable supports of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity.'' Six years prior to his farewell address, Washington wrote a letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, which contained, arguably, one of the most beautiful articulations of religious liberty in American history: ``The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy--a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.'' Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited this country in the 1830s, explains in ``Democracy in America,'' in looking back at the experience of the Pilgrims: The Pilgrims came, de Tocqueville said, ``to make an idea triumph.'' They founded a community, the Pilgrims, and a society where government could not encroach on their particular religious practice. This is part of the fabric of our country. Look at the experience in history. All of the Founders were well- versed in our history, the Western history--of the importance of conscience, of religious freedom. Outside observers coming to this country, like de Tocqueville, were seeing it and understanding the importance of people of faith to correct the errors that were in our country. The movement to abolish the abominable practice of slavery happened because people of faith stood up and recognized the inherent indignity of the practice and the violation of fundamental human rights. History in our country is just replete with instances of people of faith who have stood up to make a difference. One hundred years after the end of the Civil War, it was people of faith who began the marches in the South. It was people of faith from the north who went down to help. Dr. Martin Luther King was a pastor. He went to seminary in my home State of Pennsylvania, to the Crozer Theological Seminary. He was motivated by what was the fabric of his life, which was grounded in scripture. He asked the big questions. Just before his death, Dr. King says: ``Conscience asks, `Is it right?' And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.'' People of faith, people of conscience, we have seen them very active in the effort to protect all human life since the Supreme Court, in 1973, took what then-Justice White said was an exercise in raw judicial power and said that certain human beings aren't persons. We know that we have had more than 50 million abortions since that time, but it has been people of faith who have been looking for solutions, who have been seeking to help women in crisis. Whether it has been Catholic charities, crisis pregnancy centers, people of faith, they have been standing up and providing assistance to women in crisis, walking with them, helping to carry the burdens that they are experiencing--of women who have often been abandoned and isolated, who don't feel like they have a friend but then who find a hotline where a voice picks up--somebody who has been motivated by his faith to be sitting by that phone, wanting to help, asking to help. Next week, the Supreme Court is going to be taking a look at this case. Again, it may be the most important religious freedom case the Court has heard. The Court is going to make the decision: For the individual who objects to signing a form based on his religious belief, is that a legitimate exercise of his conscience? That is not the government's decision, Mr. Speaker. The government should not be subjectively telling an individual in this country, who has a fundamental First Amendment right--a first freedom--to exercise his religion, what is legitimate and what is not. That is what is at stake here. It is interesting that my diocese--the diocese in which I live, the Diocese of Pittsburgh--is the lead plaintiff named in the case, Bishop Zubik. Bishop Zubik has written: ``Religious freedom is not secondary freedom; it is the founding freedom. Religious freedom in this country means that we pledge allegiance to both God and country, not to God or country. ``We have the right not just to worship, not just to pray privately. We also have the right to try to have an impact on our society for the common good. We have our rights to express our beliefs publicly and try to convince hearts and minds. We not only have a duty but the right to live out the faith in our ministries of service. ``Religious freedom is not a passive act. Religious freedom is intentionally action. Religious freedom has to be expressed. Religious freedom has to be lived. Religious freedom has to be out in the open, among the people. Freedom of religion can never be confined to merely the freedom to worship. It defies the Constitution and does a mortal injustice to society.'' The First Amendment doesn't say ``freedom to worship.'' It says ``freedom of religion.'' For those who are Christians, you can go to Matthew, chapter 25, and the mandates that we have from Jesus. Looking at whether in your life you fed the poor, clothed the naked, gave drink to the thirsty, visited those in prison, when you go up to the pearly gates, those who have lived in accordance with Matthew 25 may still ask the question: When did I help you? When? ``When you did it to the least of my brothers, you did it to me.'' That is not happening inside the church, Mr. Speaker. That is happening on the streets. It is happening in hospitals. It is happening in health clinics. It is happening in food banks. It is happening on counseling hotlines. These are people of faith who are engaged in public society, who want to help others. In a spirit of solidarity, they are standing with those who are suffering, and they are wanting to help--motivated by their faith. That is what the Little Sisters of the Poor do. I mentioned how the Little Sisters come to my parish and beg. They are not a very threatening bunch, Mr. Speaker. They have homes across the country in which they are taking care of the elderly. They offer an opportunity for dignity for the people who have lived long and hard lives. At the end of their lives, they may not have much to show for it from a monetary perspective, but they may have lived very rich lives in the way they were helping in their communities. That is not a condition for going to stay with the Little Sisters of the Poor. They love unconditionally and they provide a chance for people in their senior years to have a little bit of respect and a little bit of dignity. The Little Sisters of the Poor are up against a leviathan--Goliath-- the all-powerful United States Federal Government at the Department of Health and Human Services. It says, ``You will sign this. You, Sister, will sign this.'' ``But,'' Sister says in her conscience, ``I can't do that.'' ``Sister, it is an opt-out.'' Sister is saying, ``Yes, but if I sign that document, that sets in chain the provisions of services that violate my conscience. You are forcing me to take an act to be the cause--the cause of something I don't believe in.'' ``But, Sister, you will. You will do this.'' Think back 2,000 years, 1,800 years. The Empire needs to be protected from barbarians who are going to be coming across--the Goths, whoever it is. We have to sacrifice just a pinch--just a pinch--to our Roman gods to be protected. Thomas More: King Henry's surrogates go to Thomas in the tower. ``Just sign the document. Just sign the document. It is not going to hurt. It will bring peace. It will make sure that the king's dynasty will continue. We are tired of religious wars in Europe, and if the king doesn't have a male heir, then we are going to have all kinds of continued wars. There is a very good justification, Sir Thomas, to sign that document.'' Thomas says, ``I can't. I can't.'' He lost his head. People of faith in England and in Holland--wherever--knew that if they got to these shores, they could live in freedom of conscience. Now we have the all-powerful government coming in and saying: You will comply; you will sign. Oh, Sister, that is not a violation of your religious freedom. Trust us. Really? Really? How is it that the Federal Government could be the arbiter of what is a sincerely held belief? Doesn't that set the government up perhaps as an entity itself making religious decisions? I thought the Federal Government was not supposed to make religious decisions. If the Federal Government has a bureau of what is a sincerely held religious belief, that is a pretty serious issue that the Court needs to take a look at. I wonder what you would call that bureau? Bureau of legitimate religious practices? Bureau of legitimate religious beliefs? Bureau of what we will allow you to believe in this country? Is that what this is? It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that religious freedom is not a priority here for those who promulgate these regulations. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), who is a stalwart defender of human life.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Benishek. Again, you think about the dignity of the human person and, as he talked about, the importance of the right to life, just a fundamental right. Again, as I mentioned earlier, the first right in our founding documents, beginning with the first freedom being the freedom of religion. It is amazing to me how the freedom of religion in this country has informed the world and what took root in this country 240 years ago, which is the notion that we were not going to have an established church and that we were going to allow people to freely exercise their faith and how that has led to this proliferation in our country of the practice of faith. And comparing what is happening in the United States versus other countries, particularly in Europe where there was an established church, we know that more people go to church in this country than in Europe. It was the American experience, I think, that has really informed others, including the Catholic church, of which I am a member. I hark back to what President Washington had written to the Hebrew congregation: ``The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess, alike, liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.'' It is amazing to look at that letter and then to reflect how the Catholic church came together under, now, Pope Saint John XXIII with the Second Vatican Council, which the whole idea was to open up the church and to engage modernity and to see what was out there that might inform how people are ordering their lives. The Second Vatican Council issued a number of remarkable documents, including a declaration on religious freedom, the Dignitatis Humanae. It states: ``The exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind.'' The Second Vatican Council, they had to recognize how religious freedom developed in this country because there was no coercion. Conversely, there is the long history going back hundreds of years, centuries, back to the Roman martyrs where the emperor was forcing people to act against their conscience, King Henry VIII. Here we have, today, an all-powerful Federal Government sitting in judgment on what somebody's sincerely held belief is. The Court needs to protect this fundamental freedom. The Court needs to protect conscience. This country is a better place because of it. It is interesting because, as the Affordable Care Act has been implemented, the purported compelling interests that the government uses about providing access to health care, they have set up a regime, a scheme where not every single plan is being required to provide the services that the Little Sisters of the Poor find objectionable or that the Diocese of Pittsburgh would find objectionable or Geneva College, a Christian college in my district, would find objectionable, because they grandfathered some plans. They grandfathered plans that cover millions of people. So I guess it is a compelling interest when they are going after a little religious charity, but it is not a compelling interest if they are going against a big corporation that might have a grandfathered plan. Oh, it is just signing a little paper, Sister. No, it is not; it is coercion. If the Little Sisters of the Poor are providing health insurance to their employees without the mandated services that include abortion- causing drugs, if they provide a health plan that covers cancer, covers maternity benefits, covers a broken bone at the emergency room, but doesn't cover those services they find objectionable, they will be fined $36,500 a year for one person. All told, when you add it all up, it is $70 million. But if they provide no plan--no plan at all--it is $2,000 per employee. If that doesn't send a message of coercion, I don't know what does. I urge the Court to recognize the right of conscience and to be tolerant of that. This country is a wonderful country. ``Tolerance'' is one of the words that we have inscribed down here on the rostrum of the House of Representatives--``tolerance.'' It is a two-way street, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge the folks at the Department of Health and Human Services to give a better appreciation for tolerance. This country just has a long history of protecting religious freedom from the very beginning through the movement to abolish slavery, through the movement to ask for the cashing of the promissory note that Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King talked about, to the pro-life movement, to the charities, the hospitals, the clinics, the schools, and the food banks that have all been run by religious organizations. It is about these organizations wanting to take care of people. Although not a party to the case, I think of a story involving the Missionaries of Charity, that order founded by blessed Teresa of Calcutta, who will be canonized a Catholic saint this September by Pope Francis, who spoke here in this Chamber. Mother Teresa's nuns have established a number of homes around the world. We know that they had a home for the elderly in Yemen, and some of those residents were murdered just weeks ago by radical jihadists. Four of the sisters were murdered as well. Mother Teresa has established homes in our country, and I remember hearing a story about a home in San Francisco in either the late 1980s or early 1990s. It was a home that was caring for people with AIDS. There was a story of one gentleman who was going to die, and he needed a place to stay. The Missionaries of Charity took him in, and they nursed him back to health. He went back out and continued his life, but he got sick again and came back again. The sisters welcomed him back. As he neared the end of his life, he was scared until Mother Teresa picked him up in her arms. For once in his life, he found unconditional love and peace because a person of faith whom we all recognize did great things because of faith, that person found peace. Millions of people in this country have found peace because of the free exercise of religion. Let's not crush that. Let's protect these fundamental freedoms of religious freedom, the tremendous good that is being done. We should not make religious organizations adjuncts of the all-powerful Federal Government: You can practice your charity as long as you do it the way we want you to. We lose something there, Mr. Speaker. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, as the father of six children, I, too, am very concerned about environmental risk to our kids, and I am very concerned about the ending of the environmental progress of what we have seen in the refuse-to-energy industry to date. Let me be clear. There is no change because of the SENSE Act in overall changes on SO2, and there is no issue with mercury because these plants already comply with the mercury requirements. We need to consider the health of our communities if these facilities close. This is a reasonable, balanced, and commonsense approach. Let's not circle the wagons and say no to continued cleanup on the hillsides of Pennsylvania. Let's not say no to restoring streams. Let's not say no to the jobs that these plants represent. Mr. Speaker, my district is in danger and my constituents are at risk unless this bill passes. Coal refuse piles that have persisted for generations catch fire and burn uncontrollably, spewing toxic pollutants into the air. Acid mine drainage leaches into rivers and streams, turning them orange and destroying wildlife. Great mountains of coal refuse reminiscent of moonscapes feature prominently in the countryside, looming over towns, school yards, and farms. Without the hard work of the men and women of the coal refuse-to- energy industry, work that includes painstaking remediation, this problem would be far worse. Yet, EPA regulations that are blind to this industry's unique circumstances threaten to bring their work to an end. You would think our environmental regulatory agencies and conservation-minded Members of Congress would be eager to find a viable solution to addressing this environmental problem and protecting vulnerable communities across coal country. Some Members of this body, it seems, choose not to acknowledge the challenges faced by the coal refuse-to-energy industry. They look past the overwhelming good done by these plants as they seek to impose their environmental orthodoxy. It would seem, based on this afternoon's debate, that preventing uncontrolled coal refuse fires, ruined waterways, and environmental degradation is outweighed by an unflinching attachment to inflexible and unfair Washington environmentalist dogma. Contrary to what the SENSE Act's opponents claim, these facilities will be forced to close if we fail to provide them with reasonable and achievable emissions limits. It may interest some in this Chamber that the SENSE Act has typically been a bipartisan proposal. In fact, both of Pennsylvania's Senators-- Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey--previously introduced an amendment that was much broader than the conservative and restrained bill on the House floor today. Despite it being a far more aggressive proposal, the Casey-Toomey amendment earned the support of a majority of Senators. Back home, organizations that work to actually address Pennsylvania's environmental issues have rallied to the SENSE Act. Both the Western and Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation have endorsed my bill. Watershed groups have also issued letters of support. Some today have wrongly argued that the SENSE Act picks winners and losers, that it somehow advantages small, endangered coal refuse-to- energy facilities. Somehow, in the minds of the bill's opponents, David became Goliath. They fail to see that the issue at hand concerns a small socially beneficial industry unfairly battered by an all-powerful regulatory giant and fighting for survival. What is most striking about the opposition's mischaracterization is that the EPA has created winners and losers through its inflexible implementation of these rules in which they refuse to treat these plants as a separate category. The SENSE Act merely recognizes what the EPA should have acknowledged a long time ago, that coal refuse facilities are different from traditional coal-fired power plants. This bill eliminates the EPA's unfairness by giving these facilitates a realistic chance of complying with air quality rules. Some today have suggested that the States could simply address this issue on their own, that my bill gets in the way of State autonomy. In fact, States have little to no autonomy in administering CSAPR, since any requested change must be approved by the EPA. According to the SENSE Act's opponents, the EPA, which has thus far refused to provide flexibility for these plants, would somehow have a change of heart and decide to approve State-requested policy changes. I find that hard to imagine. Some have also charged that the SENSE Act would threaten air quality, forgetting that this legislation specifically avoids causing any increase in State SO2 allocations. More importantly, without the remediation work fueled by this industry, the uncontrolled and environmentally catastrophic coal refuse pile fires that are far too common will only continue. The unregulated emissions from these fires are a greater concern to public health. It is unfair that some in Washington have pursued an unfair and uncompromising orthodoxy on this issue and have derided in their zeal an overwhelmingly successful private sector solution to a pressing environmental challenge. The SENSE Act is about protecting vulnerable coal country communities from pollution and environmental degradation. It is about standing up for over 5,200 family-sustaining jobs, many of which are in areas that have experienced economic hardship. These jobs come with names: Robert, John, Tim, James, Pat. I urge approval of this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for the support that he and the Energy and Commerce Committee have expressed for H.R. 3797, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act, also known as the SENSE Act. Mr. Chair, the SENSE Act is a vitally important effort that I have championed in various forms for my nearly 3 years in Congress. This bill recognizes the overwhelming success of the endangered coal refuse- to-energy industry in making my district in western Pennsylvania and others across coal country healthier and cleaner places to work and live. Without the SENSE Act, coal refuse-to-energy facilities will close, and their environmental mediation efforts will end. Contrary to the claims of this legislation's supposedly environmentalist opponents, the SENSE Act is a pro-environment bill. As many of you know, the coal industry has been an important part of the economy in Pennsylvania for many generations. Historic mining activity unfortunately left behind large piles of coal refuse. These piles consist of lower quality coal mixed with rock and dirt. For a long time, we did not have the technology to use this material, so it accumulated in large piles in cities and towns, close to schools and neighborhoods, and in fields across the countryside. This has led to a number of environmental problems that diminish the quality of life for many people in the surrounding areas. Vegetation and wildlife have been harmed, the air has been polluted, and acid mine drainage has impaired nearby rivers and streams. I have been to many of these sites and seen firsthand the environmental danger they pose. Coal refuse piles can catch fire, causing dangerous and uncontrolled air pollution. Runoff from these sites can turn rivers orange and leave them devoid of life. The cost to clean all this up is astronomical. Pennsylvania's environmental regulator estimates that fixing abandoned mine lands could take over $16 billion, $2 billion of which would be needed for coal refuse piles alone. We needed an innovative solution to this tough challenge. A commonsense compromise was necessary to get the job done and protect the environment. That is where the coal refuse-to-energy industry comes in. Using advanced technology, this industry has been able to use this previously worthless material to generate electricity. This activity powers remediation efforts that have so far been successful in removing over 200 million tons of coal refuse and repairing formerly polluted sites across the Commonwealth and other historic coal regions. Thanks to the hard work of the dedicated people in this industry, landscapes have been restored, rivers and streams have been brought back to life, and towns across coal country have been relieved of unsafe and unsightly waste coal piles. They do say that a picture paints a thousand words, and that is what I have here. In the foreground you have a waste coal pile that is under the process of remediation. In the background, the green hillside used to look just like the black foreground that you see here. This has been reclaimed. This is what is happening across Pennsylvania as we restore these hillsides. It is important to note that private sector leadership on this issue has saved taxpayers millions of dollars in cleanup costs. That is why Pennsylvania's abandoned mine reclamation groups have endorsed my bill, and that is why we have also earned the support of clean water advocates. Unfortunately, intensifying and inflexible EPA regulations threaten to bring much of the coal refuse industry's activity to a halt. This would leave billions of dollars of vital cleanup unfinished, lead to thousands of job losses, and endanger our energy security. The SENSE Act addresses challenges arising from the implementation of two existing rules: MATS, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, and CSAPR, known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Though all coal refuse-fired power generators can meet--can meet--the mercury standard under MATS, many facilities will be unable to meet the rule's new hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide standards. Contrary to what critics allege, the SENSE Act simply provides operators with alternative MATS compliance standards that are strict but achievable. Similarly, although coal refuse-fired power generators were provided sufficient sulfur dioxide allocations in phase 1 of CSAPR's implementation, these facilities were allocated insufficient credits in phase 2, which is set to begin in 2017. The SENSE Act seeks to provide coal refuse-fired power generators with the same allocations levels in phase 2 as in phase 1. My bill also contains provisions to ensure that this change does not simply create a profit center for the industry. Credits allocated as a result of the SENSE Act's implementation must go to covered plants, specifically those that use bituminous coal refuse, and they cannot be sold off to other operators.

Mr. ROTHFUS. In the last Congress, I merely attempted to exempt these facilities from MATS compliance with SO2 and HCl. Building upon my efforts, Senators Toomey and Casey from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania offered a bipartisan amendment providing similar treatment for these plants within the context of both MATS and CSAPR. While this proposal was supported by a bipartisan majority of Senators, it failed to achieve the supermajority necessary to pass. What we are looking to achieve today is much narrower and far more limited than our effort in the last Congress, which received bipartisan support. This should not be a controversial or bipartisan issue. We want to hold this industry to high standards, but standards they can actually achieve. My bill will help keep the coal refuse industry in business so that the local community, economy, and environment will continue to reap the benefits. The people who live near coal refuse piles and all of the communities downstream of these hazards expect us to find a solution. I thank the chairman for his time and cooperation with this vital piece of legislation.

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, there are only 19 plants we are talking about here and four States that are involved. There are some plants out there that can comply--there is not a question about that--but there are only a few of them, and we are looking at a number of plants that do not have the capacity to comply with these one-size-fits-all standards. While the State should be looking at this, the SENSE Act does what the EPA should have done in creating these categories. It could take up to 2 years, Mr. Chairman, for the EPA to get back as to any kind of modification. The State could propose a change, but then it has to wait and wait and wait, and while it waits, we will see power plants close that do not have this technology. There is something called a ``margin'' in business, Mr. Chairman. You take a look at the expense of doing things, you look at the cost of things, and you look at the income. Once the expense or the cost exceeds the income, plants' businesses go out of business. People lose jobs. That is what we are talking about. In this case, not only do people lose jobs, but the tremendous environmental cleanup stops that is taking place. Pennsylvania estimates it would take $2 billion to clean up these waste coal sites. I have walked the fields where they have been cleaned up in Allegheny County and in Cambria County. I have seen hillsides on which deer now graze where it used to be just a martian landscape, and I have seen rivers that used to be orange that now have fish in them. This is an industry that has been cleaning up these sites without the taxpayers picking up the tabs. Every State in this country is having budget issues and is trying to find resources to address critical things like environmental cleanup. This is something that is working. When you have one size fits all, where the EPA refuses to make an accommodation because it does not recognize the tremendous benefit that these facilities are bringing to Pennsylvania, that is what this legislation seeks to change. There is no free pass here for these plants. They will still be measured and they will still have to comply, but this is a customization to something that is achievable, and it is a customization that I would argue is what the EPA should have been doing all along.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, it would be great for Pennsylvania to come up with a customization on its own, but that would take a couple of years for approval from the EPA. In the meantime, these plants will be closed. Few, if any, conventional coal plant owners have expressed concerns about the SENSE Act. Bear in mind, we are talking about an overall allocation for SO2 and a reconfiguring within that overall allocation. So there is not going to be an increase in SO2; it will be a mere customization and allocation, and it should have been done and should have been allowed by the EPA. While the President may have issued a veto threat, my hope is, before the President would follow through on such a veto threat, that he would come to western Pennsylvania, that he would walk the hills with me, that he would see the streams that have come back to life, that he would talk to Tim and talk to Bill and talk to the men and women at these plants who are taking care of their families, so they can say, ``Mr. President, we need some help here. Our communities have been economically distressed. We are sustaining our communities with these jobs. We are raising our kids with these jobs. What we don't like, Mr. President, are these one-size-fits-all edicts coming out of Washington, D.C., that give our States and communities the burden of complying-- totally excluding the benefits that have been happening on the ground.'' Again, to see these places that have been reclaimed is remarkable. It is my hope that the President would visit those places before he follows through on any kind of veto threat.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not warranted because any change in a State's compliance cost will be very low. There are only 19 coal refuse-to-energy facilities in the United States, mostly small, under 100 megawatts, and only a subset will avail themselves of the bill's provisions. We are only talking about four States: West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Montana. The bill merely reallocates emission allowances under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule from other plants to coal refuse-to-energy facilities. This will help ensure the continued operation of these plants but is unlikely to have much of a cost impact. As was stated in an earlier debate, this bill does what the EPA should have done. It creates provisions that are realistic and achievable for coal refuse-to-energy facilities. Both the Clean Air Act and the EPA regulations promulgated under it routinely divide regulated entities into separate categories that are treated differently based on their unique characteristics. Coal refuse-to-energy facilities have many such unique characteristics and should have been treated as a separate category in EPA rulemakings. It was discretionary for them not to, the Court held, but that doesn't mean they should not have. And it is the policymaking branch of this government, this Congress, this Article I branch, where the people should have a say in how they are governed. They were not accommodated in the EPA rulemakings, and the SENSE Act addresses that omission. Any modest costs, Mr. Chairman, are more than offset by the jobs, energy, and especially the environmental benefits of keeping the coal refuse-to-energy fleet in operation. States' environmental regulators estimate the cost of addressing coal refuse to be approximately $2 billion in Pennsylvania alone, and that is just for cleanup. When one of these coal piles catch fire and the damage that is done-- and when they are on fire, there is no control, Mr. Chairman. There is no control. Nothing is being eliminated as these waste coal piles burn. When the waste coal is being used by the energy industry in these plants, there are controls in place. Finally, with respect to giving States flexibility, everything has to be approved by the EPA, Mr. Chairman. That is illusory. It could take 2 years for the EPA to approve a State plan. In the meantime, the plants close, the progress stops, and the people lose their jobs. I would urge a vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that what we are looking at here is that the SENSE Act seeks to accomplish what the EPA should have done in creating special categories. Again, if you are looking at compliance costs, any costs are going to be low. And then when you combine that with the requirement to seek EPA approval and the delays that that would incur, these plants will be closed, the environmental progress will stop, and challenged communities will be further challenged. These are solid, good-paying, family-sustaining jobs in these plants. We know that while some plants are in compliance, others are not. So, again, this SENSE Act seeks to do what the EPA should have done from the very beginning and create appropriate categorization.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. In addition to listening to my constituents, I have been listening to my good friend from Colorado about wanting to come here to solve problems. Well, the SENSE Act is about solving a problem. I, too, have a beautiful district. I consider it the most beautiful district in the country. You get on top of some of those mountain vistas and it is breathtaking. But unlike the gentleman from Colorado, there are some scars when you look up at some of those vistas. The scars are a vestige of ages-ago mining. That is why the SENSE Act, Mr. Speaker, is a smart and important legislative fix to ensure that the coal refuse-to-energy facilities can be held to strict, but achievable, standards. Coal refuse, as some of you may know--and perhaps this is an educational moment for people in this country to learn more about what we have up there in Pennsylvania--is a byproduct of historic coal- mining operations. Anyone who has driven through coal country has seen the towering black mounds of this material that loom beside cities and towns and countrysides. These mounds catch fire, burning uncontrollably and sending hazardous smoke into the air. Rainwater leaches terrible chemicals from those mounds, polluting nearby rivers and streams. The coal refuse-to-energy industry turns this material into energy and uses the profits and beneficial residual material to remediate these formerly polluted sites at no cost to the taxpayer. It is really the only feasible solution to this massive environmental problem. I have seen the tremendous work done by the hardworking men and women in this industry firsthand. I have stood on coal refuse piles in the process of remediation. I have walked on the restored sites. Parks and meadows now are regarded as community assets rather than liabilities. Despite all the good that this industry does for Pennsylvania, coal refuse-to-energy facilities are under attack from the EPA. The people of my State and other coal States expect us to stand up for them as their environment and livelihoods come under threat from Washington. As we debate the rule for this legislation and prepare for general and amendment debate, I want to share a few stories from the people in this industry. These are people who are proud of the great work they have done for their communities. Unfortunately, their way of life is currently endangered. Bill Turner is a shift supervisor at the A/C Colver coal refuse facility in Cambria County. Bill has served at Colver for 22 years. He is a long-term resident of western Pennsylvania and has lived alongside coal refuse piles for many years. Bill and his colleagues are proud of the reclamation work that his plant and others in the area have been able to complete over the years. He was able to put three kids through college, thanks to his job at Colver, and I should mention that these kids grew up playing soccer on a field reclaimed from a coal refuse site. When I asked him about the prospect that his industry might be destroyed by the EPA, he remarked, ``To see it disappear would be a travesty.'' Tim is an operations shift supervisor--a younger man, in his early thirties, with a wife and two small kids. Wages at his plant are well above the area average, and he is planning on building a new house near the plant for his young family. Again, Mr. Speaker, these plants are in economically challenged areas. These jobs that these individuals have are not replaceable. Allowing inflexible EPA orthodoxy to shutter his plant, a plant that supports family-sustaining jobs and that repairs the local environment, would be a disaster for Tim and his family. At least 5,200 jobs are at stake, and each one of those jobs is more than just a number. Each job lost is a Tim or a Bill. Each job lost represents a major hardship for an American family. As we debate the SENSE Act, please keep in mind what the bill's supporters are fighting for. The SENSE Act is about protecting family- sustaining jobs and is about ensuring the continuation of the environmental success story of the coal refuse-to-energy industry. I urge all Members to support this rule and the SENSE Act today so that we can begin to solve problems.