Keith Rothfus

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to the gentlewoman from Texas. She mentioned the word ``burdensome.'' What is really burdensome is the way that these rules are being applied. When the EPA had a chance to do a customized approach, they chose not to. Why is it burdensome? It is burdensome because there are plants that will not be able to comply, which means the environmental progress that we have seen will stop, which means that their jobs will be lost. I do note that there is bipartisan support for this initiative. Both Senators Casey and Toomey, on the other side of this Capitol, from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania--one a Republican, one a Democrat-- recognize the practicality of this approach. They recognize that the legislation makes sense. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Chairman, if we could take a look at this amendment, this amendment would require the EPA Administrator to notify affected States and localities of any anticipated effects of the legislation on air quality. The issue is the SENSE Act prohibits any increase in covered emissions, so any impact on air quality will be very limited. The SENSE Act mandates that sulfur dioxide emissions stay within the EPA-approved caps so there can be no increase above approved levels. Coal refuse-to-energy plants are negligible emitters of mercury, and the bill requires emissions reductions of hydrogen chloride and other compounds only at a rate achievable for this type of facility. The proposed amendment is one-sided, as it ignores the air and water quality benefits from reducing the coal refuse problem, including reducing the risk of heavily polluting coal refuse fires that can affect many State and local governments. For example, this amendment would not require the EPA Administrator to notify affected communities of what happens when a coal refuse pile catches on fire and there is an uncontrolled release of pollutants into the environment. We should be focused on ensuring that these innovative refuse-to- energy facilities can continue to operate and reduce the serious water and air quality problems posed by coal refuse. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his service to this country, having himself put on the uniform prior to his coming to this Congress. He is one of the greatest assets we have in this Chamber. It is just a real pleasure to have gotten to know him over the last year and a half and to call him a friend. When this country makes a decision to send people to war, we need to understand that the people own that decision. What does that mean? It means, when we put people out in harm's way, our servicemen and servicewomen, we better be there when they come home. It is the principle of solidarity. They stand for us. We have to stand for them. I am joining this Special Order today because I want to again bring attention to this serious issue that should trouble everyone's conscience. We have been made painfully aware in the past several years that the VA has failed in a number of ways to adequately serve our Nation's veterans. As I understand it, while most Americans are patriotic, too few have taken the time to develop empathy for what our veterans go through, especially in combat. Mr. Speaker, everyone in America needs to be engaging our veterans. This is all hands on deck. We all know veterans. It is good to ask them about their service and to walk with them. As I have talked to veterans across my district, I asked for some emails from them because I knew I was going to be coming to have this Special Order. ``The United States isn't united in purpose,'' one veteran explained to me. ``We're divided, fighting a global war with a peacetime mindset. Americans have never been farther away from our Nation's veterans . . . from what it takes to defend our Nation's freedom. The true cost of war is lost on most.'' The failure to understand what veterans have gone through is not just characteristic of the broader population, but it is also a problem at the VA, an agency that should strive to fully understand the experience of our servicemen and -women so that they can better serve them. Many veterans suffering with mental health issues as a result of traumas experienced during their service have too often been left to fend for themselves. In fact, the VA has come up short so often it has risen to the level of a scandal, with an estimated 22 veteran deaths per day, or over 8,000 annually, as a result of mental health issues. One young veteran told me about the condescending and patronizing language used by some--let me emphasize some--VA staff. There are VA staff on the front lines who are very dedicated and very committed to serving our veterans. It is disturbing that we would have some who don't see it that way. He told me that one staff stooped so low as to call veterans bums when they were seeking financial assistance during hard times. It is outrageous and painful to think that men and women who are willing to die for this country are not being treated with the utmost dignity and respect. But that is the tragic reality, and it is unacceptable. The good news is that we can and must do better. I have heard directly from veterans in my district about what they believe can be done to improve this startling trend. I have been working to reform the VA throughout my time in Congress to improve its standards and ensure quality service for our veterans by increasing accountability within the agency. Beyond this, however, there are commonsense and innovative ways we can help veterans. One of them is to facilitate veteran peer support programs. Veterans want to help each other. Because while many VA employees may have never served in the military, the men and women of our Armed Forces have experiences in common that civilians do not share. Less than 1 percent of Americans serve in the military and fewer still see combat. They truly understand each other. They speak each other's language, so to speak. The VA should not be an obstacle to veterans coming to each others' aid. Another veteran told me this: ``Peer-to-peer counseling for combat veterans is a critical aspect of a multifaceted approach to healing an invisible wound that lacks a universal fix. ``The universal nature of recognizing that the veteran is not alone: acknowledgement other veterans have faced the same problems and situations, and hope from their stories of triumph over their demons, enables the combat veteran to take the critical steps of admitting to themselves they have a problem.'' It helps them take the ``seemingly hardest step of admitting they are not in a hopeless situation,'' this veteran told me. He also told me, ``Peer-to-peer counseling helps the counselor as much as the counseled via preservation of camaraderie and the fulfillment of helping their own.'' Far too many veterans experience hopelessness and isolation even though they do not have to. This needs to change, and I am sure that we can do better for the men and women who risked everything to protect our way of life. Mr. Speaker, the VA's inadequacies are unacceptable, and the agency should embrace commonsense solutions to provide veterans with higher quality, effective treatment and opportunities for healing. I laud my colleague, Representative Zeldin, for his PFC Joseph Dwyer Veterans Peer Support program. As I looked at this legislation, inevitably, you go look at who Joseph Dwyer was. I would encourage this country to look at that and to look for the other Joseph Dwyers, to look and reach out to those who have served empathetically. To our veterans who may be watching today, you are not alone. Thank you for your service. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Zeldin for his service and for his work on this important piece of legislation. I look forward to further consideration by this House.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I want to thank my friend, Congressman Fortenberry, for the steadfast witness that you have given to this cause and other causes of human dignity and to call us together again after this historic House vote today where the House stands in solidarity with the suffering victims of the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn in no uncertain terms the slaughter of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities in Iraq, Syria, and the region held by ISIS. These are crimes against humanity and acts of genocide. Everyone should denounce this senseless brutality. The United States and the United Nations should officially recognize the mass murder of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East as acts of genocide. We do not hear about this massacre often enough from the media. While many Americans may never have met someone from the Middle East, we are all part of the same human family. Christians in America may be set apart from our brothers and sisters in the Middle East geographically, but we worship the same God and are connected in our humanity. We owe these suffering men, women, and children the greatest reverence and gratitude for their fortitude as they endure killings, displacement from their homes, forced migration, sexual exploitation, destruction of their property, and endure bodily and mental harm. We must not remain silent as we live in the comfort of a Nation where our liberties are protected by the law and our culture, to a much greater degree, permits us to peacefully live out our faith. I recall the words from 2001 of Pope John Paul II, Bishop of Rome, and His Holiness Karekin II, the Supreme Patriarch of all Armenians, as they commemorated the sacrifices of the Armenian Christians who were also brutalized by genocide for their faith: Endowed with great faith, they chose to bear witness to the truth and accept death when necessary in order to share eternal life. The most valuable treasure that one generation could bequeath to the next was fidelity to the gospel so that the young would become as resolute to their ancestors in bearing witness to the truth. The extermination of a million and a half Armenian Christians in what is generally referred to as the first genocide of the 20th century and the subsequent annihilation of thousands under the former totalitarian regime are tragedies that still live in the memory of the present-day generation. Fifteen years later their words still ring true as entire communities of Christians and other religious minorities are ravaged by genocide and religious persecution in the Middle East. This persecution at the hands of ISIS is so horrific that, as Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill said last month in a joint statement: Whole families, villages, and cities of our brothers and sisters in Christ are being completely exterminated. It is intolerable to remain silent and turn a blind eye. Silence and the failure to accurately identify not some, but all, of the victims of this genocide condemns these innocent people to a future of continued brutality, destruction, isolation, and genocide. All religious minorities in the Middle East deserve religious freedom and the ability to live peacefully within their communities, as they have done for centuries. We will continue to stand in solidarity with them and to denounce the war crimes and genocide being committed against the law. I want to end with two words, Mr. Speaker, two words: moral clarity. This is the time, Mr. Speaker, for moral clarity. Today this House spoke. The whole world now watches. We need the administration to speak. I thank my friend.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, when our Founders wrote the Constitution, they had the wisdom to create a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. They knew this would limit power, protect against abuses, and promote liberty under the Constitution. The President has the right to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, but the Senate has the co-equal right to consent to such an appointment. One branch has a power; another has a check. Today, with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, we have a chance to see this system of checks and balances in action. In deciding to exercise its consent to an appointment to the Supreme Court, the Senate should assess whether the President has been acting consistent with the Constitution. The chart below highlights just a few of the President's unconstitutional actions since he was reelected in 2012. July 2013: President disregards employer mandate. February 2014: President disregards employer mandate again. June 2014: SCOTUS rules 9-0 President violated Appointments Clause. November 2014: President announces executive amnesty. May 2015: Court of Appeals stops executive amnesty. February 2016: Stops Clean Power Plan. These actions have been frequent, repeated, and grave. These actions have poisoned the well of deliberation for this appointment. In that light, why shouldn't the Senate withhold consent? It is a game the President chose to play, and now he must face the consequence.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives began hearings to look into Planned Parenthood's harvesting and trafficking of human body parts, which was revealed in a series of undercover videos last year. These were videos that even Democrat Presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, in her words, ``obviously found disturbing.'' Since the release of the videos last year, some have rushed to defend the organization, and Planned Parenthood and its allies have been in full damage control mode. Among the more bizarre defenses has been that the videos were heavily edited, as if the statements made by Planned Parenthood officials and a worker who harvested body parts really aren't what they appear to be. I do not serve on this select committee, but if I did, I would really want to take a hard look at that defense. The term ``heavily edited'' suggests that important, qualifying context may have been omitted in these videos; but I struggle, Mr. Speaker, with trying to understand any context that would soften the language in these tapes. For example, in what context is this okay? ``We have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I am not going to crush that part.'' What about: ``A lot of people want intact hearts these days,'' or ``always as many intact livers as possible''? Do the defenders of Planned Parenthood think that they are talking about chicken hearts or livers at a butcher shop as opposed to baby body parts? Just in what context does this sound right? ``Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs.'' How about: ``Some people want lower extremities, too''--that would be legs. ``I don't know what they're doing with it. I guess they want the muscle''? Again, Mr. Speaker, what is the situation in which these statements would not shock a sensitive conscience? What about this line? When is this an acceptable statement? ``Using a `less crunchy' technique to get more whole specimens.'' In that phrase, the context is you have a Planned Parenthood official who is talking about a ``less crunchy'' type of abortion, which begs the obvious question: What does that even mean? Can anyone who defends Planned Parenthood give me the context in which this sounds good? ``I know I've seen livers; I've seen stomachs; I've seen plenty of neural tissue. Usually you can see the whole brain, usually, come out.'' What about: ``I don't think it would be as war torn'' when discussing what fetal remains look like during a second trimester abortion? What would that sentence sound like in an unedited video? At one point in a video, a clinic worker brings in another fetal body, saying, ``And another boy.'' A boy. In another context, you might hear ``and another boy'' if a mom is giving birth to twin sons, but that is obviously not the context of these videos. Finally, Mr. Speaker, can someone please tell me the context in which this dialogue does not mean what it says? ``This is a really good fetus, and it looks like we can procure a lot from it . . . we're going to procure brain.'' Further: ``So she gave me the scissors and she told me I have to cut down the middle of the face; and I can't even, like, describe, like, what that feels like. And I remember picking it up and finishing going through the rest of the face and just picking up the brain and putting it in a container . . . and I'm just sitting there, like, what did I just do?'' What is the context in which these words might not be what they seem? I can think of one: perhaps if you had a screenwriter who was talking about a new horror film she was writing. But this is no horror film, Mr. Speaker. These words are direct quotes from a technician who is engaged in a real-world practice that is appalling, barbaric, and indefensible--the harvesting of fetal body parts for money. It is not easy to come to the floor of the House to speak these words. I would prefer not to. It is uncomfortable to listen to these words, and many people would prefer not to hear them. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker--if I don't like talking about this and if people don't like hearing about it--why, for goodness sake, are we allowing hard-working taxpayers' dollars to go to the organization that is responsible for them? We are a better nation than what is revealed in these videos. There are 13,000 other health clinics that are capable of providing health care for women, clinics which do not perform abortions. It is past time that the $500 million in Federal dollars that Planned Parenthood receives every year be redirected to those clinics. I thank the gentleman from Texas. When Weakness is Provocative

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, when our Founders wrote the Constitution, they had the wisdom to create a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. They knew this would limit power, protect against abuses, and promote liberty. Under our Constitution, the President has the right to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court, but one House of the Congress, the Senate, has the coequal right to consent to such an appointment. One branch has a power, another has a check. Today, with a vacancy on the Supreme Court, we have a chance to see this system of checks and balances in action. In deciding whether to consent to an appointment to the Supreme Court, the Senate should assess whether the President has been acting consistent with the Constitution. The chart to my left highlights just a few of President Obama's unconstitutional actions since he was reelected in 2012. These actions have been frequent, repeated, and grave. These actions have poisoned the well of deliberation for any appointment by this President. In that light, why wouldn't the Senate withhold consent? It is a game the President chose to play, and withholding consent to his appointment is an appropriate consequence.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of the soldiers of the 14th Quartermaster Detachment of the United States Army Reserve who were killed or wounded in their barracks by an Iraqi Scud missile attack in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm in 1991 on this date. The soldiers of the Pennsylvania Army Reserve served with bravery and honor in Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm, and they will forever make western Pennsylvania proud. Sixty-nine soldiers of the 14th Quartermaster Detachment stationed in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, were deployed to Saudi Arabia during this campaign. These brave men and women were supporting operations to liberate the people of Kuwait. Even though 13 of these soldiers gave their lives 25 years ago today--another 43 were wounded--the impact of their sacrifice and their loss has not faded and will not be forgotten. We owe these soldiers and their families a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid, and we sympathize with the pain endured by those they left behind. May God bless them.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Virginia, for organizing this Special Order on behalf of this remarkable, remarkable American. On February 13 of this year, our country lost a giant. His legacy will never fade. Justice Scalia influenced countless jurists, attorneys, law students, and everyday Americans. My thoughts and prayers have been with his wife, Maureen, Father Paul, and the entire Scalia family since the passing of this outstanding American statesman. Regardless of whether one agreed with his opinions on the Supreme Court, this man's consistent integrity and admirable character cannot be denied. In both word and action, he was a man of the strongest character and deepest virtue. This was evident in the commencement address he gave to the graduating class of the College of William and Mary in 1996, when he said: ``Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world that is not for sale is character.'' The way he lived out the virtues of integrity and humility did not go unnoticed. Several weeks ago, we here in Washington had the opportunity to go to the National Prayer Breakfast, which attracted Members of Congress, the President, Senators, Ambassadors, people from all over the world, and we were treated with an appearance by famed tenor Andrea Bocelli. I think that Justice Scalia would have enjoyed his appearance and his appreciation for opera. In addition to his wonderful renditions of ``Panis Angelicus,'' which, again would have been another treat for Justice Scalia, and ``Amazing Grace,'' Mr. Bocelli lamented the dark shadow that war casts on the world and expressed concern for its victims, identifying war as a major problem in our world today. But then it was interesting. Mr. Bocelli stated: ``There is that small, hateful word, `hubris,' already known in antiquity.'' The ancient Greeks used it to define pride and the arrogance it entails. Bocelli's use of the word ``hubris'' was compelling in that he spoke it in the center of power here in the United States. That word conjures a theme that we have seen in Justice Scalia's work. Justice Scalia went about his task of considering significant constitutional and legal issues of the day with a profound and seldom seen humility about the role of courts in our country. They are not there to impose their own beliefs on the people, but to adjudicate competing claims in the context of a Constitution that has enduring meaning. To interpret the law in any other way otherwise aggrandizes power to a select few, a power that was never intended by the Founders. This humility of position that Justice Scalia had I believe will be a lasting legacy. Regardless of whether one agrees with Justice Scalia from a policy perspective, his writings reflect a profound respect for an understanding of our system of government and an unparalleled respect for an interpretation of the Constitution grounded in text and in history. For this our Nation should be forever grateful. May he rest in peace.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of some recently laid-off coal miners from Somerset County, Pennsylvania. For 7 years, President Obama has been targeting their jobs and, in the process, sacrificing the families and communities who depend on those jobs. The Obama Administration is using the EPA to conjure up regulations to all but eliminate a major part of the energy industry in western Pennsylvania. What do you say to a hardworking, middle class dad, who has a wife, three kids, and a mortgage, whose livelihood has been taken away? This particular dad's job is but one of 40,000 jobs that have been lost in coal country. This assault on good, family-sustaining jobs is one of the reasons the average family income has never fully recovered from the Great Recession. Yesterday, Fed Chair Janet Yellen testified about headwinds facing the economy. I suggest there are a number of manmade anthropogenic--to borrow a phrase--headwinds, and the EPA's regulatory assault is one of them. Sacrificing the livelihood of hardworking Americans for some personal political philosophy is unconscionable. I will continue to fight against the President's war on middle class jobs.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, this is the cover of President Obama's last budget proposal. Whether or not the administration intended it, it is a fitting and appropriate cover because it symbolizes the mountain of debt President Obama will leave behind. His latest budget proposal increases spending by a record-breaking 4.9 percent, or $2.5 trillion over the next decade. The President's budget leaves our children and grandchildren burdened with an unfathomable mountain of debt, regulations, and taxes; and like every other budget he has presented, it never balances. This budget is reckless and unconscionable. When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10.6 trillion; yet Mr. Obama has increased the national debt to $19 trillion, and this budget would increase our national debt to $27.4 trillion over the next decade--more than twice the debt when he first took office. This cover will be part of the Archives of the United States. It will be a fitting historical record for the mountains of debt it represents.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans have endured skyrocketing premiums, higher deductibles, limited networks, failing co-ops, and dropped coverage because of the Affordable Care Act, like the mom in my district who now has to pay $400 for her son's lifesaving peanut allergy medication when it used to cost her $10 under the plan that the President promised she could keep. While some have gained coverage under this failing law, it has been at the expense of far too many others. Just last Monday, the Congressional Budget Office announced that 40 percent fewer Americans signed up for health coverage this year than was predicted. In fact, many Americans are choosing to pay a penalty instead of signing up for the so-called affordable healthcare coverage mandated by this law. We need to empower all patients with more choice while offering solutions for the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions. Mr. Speaker, if we vote to override, contrary to what has been suggested, the insurance doesn't end tomorrow. We have provisions in this legislation that would extend credits through the end of 2017, giving us the opportunity to do proper healthcare reform that does empower patients and not bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, for decades, the Federal Government has spent over $1.6 trillion in an attempt to accomplish the laudable goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable, decent housing. I have visited many affordable housing sites during my time in Congress to listen to the concerns of residents, managers, and community leaders. In fact, just 2 weeks ago, I visited a public housing facility that is managed by the Housing Authority of Beaver County. These meetings and visits have underscored the importance of our housing assistance programs. If administered correctly, these efforts can be truly transformative for hardworking Americans. I have met many Pennsylvanians who have improved their lives and who have brightened their families' futures thanks, in part, to targeted Federal housing assistance provided to them in their time of need. However, there are also cases in which outdated rules, waste, fraud, abuse, and general inefficiency have made it difficult to direct resources to those who need them the most. There are also instances in which housing assistance programs have failed to help people lift themselves out of poverty. Members of both parties recognize this reality and have worked together to identify areas for improvement. H.R. 3700, the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act, is a bipartisan, commonsense bill that addresses many of these issues. Among other things, this legislation makes it easier for tenants, owners, and investors to navigate rental assistance programs by reducing duplicative and inefficient regulations that make it harder to rent or to operate affordable housing. The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act also incorporates safeguards to prevent well-off families from using scarce public housing units. We can all agree that housing assistance programs should be reserved for those who need help the most. This legislation also provides flexibility to public housing agencies in using Federal funds to meet local needs more effectively. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to improve Federal housing assistance. We owe it to the many Americans who rely on these programs to enact this legislation's reforms.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate from time to time we take the opportunity to recognize contributions that everyday citizens have made to our community and our nation. It is in that spirit that today we remember Kathy A. Holtzman of Richland Township, Cambria County, Pennsylvania. Kathy served her community, her church, and her family with dedication and joy. When she died at age 75 on December 6, 2015, she was survived by her husband, Robert, her daughter, Brenda, her grandchildren, Devin and Lea, her sister, Margery, and numerous nieces and nephews. She was preceded in death by her son, Brian. Mrs. Holtzman was a devoted member of her parish, St. Benedict Catholic Church in Geistown, where she served as an usher. A model citizen and public servant, she served as a Cambria County Commissioner for twelve years, four of those years as President Commissioner. Before serving in this capacity, she fulfilled a variety of other important roles in her community: Co-Founder, along with Bill Stewart, of Penn Highlands Community College; Richland Township School Director; Republican State Committee Women; President of Cambria County Senior Citizens and Turner Apartments in Ebensburg; board member of the Salvation Army, Peniel Drug and Alcohol Program, and Johnstown Sportsmen's Club; and member of the Geistown-Richland Lions Club. Mrs. Holtzman's family can be very proud of her legacy in the community where she without a doubt left a positive, lasting impact. Likewise, the citizens of Cambria County will continue to reap the benefits of Kathy's community engagements for years to come. Kathy Holtzman's life was a well-lived one in the service of others. It is an honor to recognize her today.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Tonight President Obama will deliver his final State of the Union, where I expect he will celebrate his supposed achievements over the last 7 years. Outside the beltway, and especially in western Pennsylvania, there is little to celebrate about the Obama Presidency. The war on coal has been a central feature of Washington's misguided efforts over the past several years, and it has caused the loss of over 40,000 jobs in the coal industry across the country and economic hardship in coal country. Later today we will vote on the STREAM Act, which challenges OSM's so-called stream protection rule. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to its passage. The stream protection rule is yet another block in the wall of regulation that President Obama has been building the last 7 years. It will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, and it will reduce coal reserves by 41 percent. That amounts to a $20 billion loss to the economy. Just yesterday we learned of the bankruptcy of yet another coal company. The job losses, firm closures, and disruptions to our communities are real, and they cannot be ignored any longer. This is an attack on cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy, and it will result in more control from Washington of the economy and the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to support the passage of this rule and the associated bills.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this year's March for Life marks the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that invented a constitutional right to abortion on demand. Justice Byron White dissented in the case, calling what the majority had done an ``exercise in raw judicial power.'' The March for Life draws thousands of people from across the Nation every year. The marchers come by foot, by car, by train, by plane. Why, Mr. Speaker, does this issue refuse to go away? I suggest because it goes to the heart of who we are and whether we will live up to the principles of our Nation's founding documents. Mr. Speaker, this issue touches the conscience of everyone. It can be difficult to discuss and it is painful to be reminded of it. Everyone in this Chamber, everyone listening to this talk, was at one point in his or her life an unborn child. The March for Life speaks to this truth and speaks to the obligation of society to defend the defenseless. May this Nation rediscover the value of everyone, and may we continue to work for the day when all are protected. Mr. Speaker, if I might take a moment to recognize the work of my colleague, Mr. Smith, who came to this House in 1980--35 years ago--and from that day has been fighting this fight. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of another statesman two centuries ago, William Wilberforce, who served in the Parliament of Britain. He was first elected there in 1780 and came to the cause to fight for the abolition of slavery in 1787, when he took on the cause with his colleagues of conscience. It took them 20 years, Mr. Speaker, to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire with the Slave Trade Act in 1807, and their work did not end. He continued his work for decades. He had to retire from Parliament in 1826, but consider that time that he put in to fighting the slave trade. They finally abolished slavery in the British Empire in 1833, and William Wilberforce learned that Parliament had the votes to pass that just days before his death. This is a fight that goes on. Sometimes justice takes time. In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled separate, but equal, is okay. It took 58 years, Mr. Speaker, for them to correct that injustice in Brown v. Board of Education. Fifty-eight years. It has been 43 years since the injustice of Roe v. Wade, but this fight will continue. We will continue to work for the protection of all human life, for justice will not sleep forever.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act came with a lot of promises. Remember the President's words in 2009, ``If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you'll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.'' This, Mr. Speaker, was false advertising. While some may have gained coverage under the ACA, far too many others were harmed by the law. Millions of Americans lost their plans or saw their premiums and out- of-pocket costs skyrocket, like the mom in my district who now has to pay $400 for her daughter's lifesaving peanut allergy medication when it used to cost her $10. That is not what was promised. We need to empower all patients with more choice while also offering solutions for the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions. And there is a way. For decades, Republicans have proposed patient- centered, market-based answers to our health insurance challenges. Today's historic vote, which is a victory over Harry Reid's 5 years of obstruction, gets us a step closer to real reform. I urge the President to sign today's bill.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta) and the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster) for organizing this Special Order this evening, and also for the participation with the Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin Epidemic; and to also recognize the individuals from New Hampshire, Kriss and Mark, who came down, and for the bravery in sharing the story of Amber and how it is important for all of us to be reflecting on this very serious crisis that we have. Many of our communities have been hit hard by the opioid abuse epidemic. Like other regions of the country, this brutal epidemic is affecting western Pennsylvania, destroying lives, breaking up families, and claiming far too many of our loved ones. Vonda Probst from Friedens, Pennsylvania, knows firsthand the devastating reality of losing a loved one to drugs. Nearly 2 years have passed since Ms. Probst lost her son, Jared Carter, to a heroin overdose. Jared enjoyed motorcycle riding, four-wheeling, fixing old cars, and just being outdoors. He would have turned 30 this last summer. There are far too many stories like Jared's in Pennsylvania and throughout our Nation, lives full of potential and value that are cut short by drug abuse. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, last year alone there were well over 10,000 heroin overdose deaths. This number reflects a six-fold increase in the number of heroin deaths since 2001. In my State of Pennsylvania alone, drug overdose deaths have increased by 470 percent over the past two decades, and heroin and opioids are increasingly to blame. These drugs have been responsible for the loss of nearly 3,000 lives in our State in just the last 5 years. Parts of the 12th District have been especially hard hit as heroin use is the leading cause of accidental deaths. In fact, in 2012, there were a record 261 drug overdose deaths in Allegheny County, which is more than Allegheny County's traffic fatalities and homicides put together and is 30 percent higher than the State average. In Cambria County, the drug overdose death rate is nearly double the State average. These statistics are horrifying, but behind the numbers are people and tragedy. Every heroin-related death cuts short a valuable human life that should have ended with a much brighter and a much later chapter. Every American who dies from a drug overdose is a person who had dignity and potential. Without adequate assistance, however, each one did not have hope. It is time to turn a new page in order to proactively defeat this deadly epidemic with renewed dedication. As a member of the Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin Epidemic, I am strongly committed to ending this scourge. We need to find new ways to combat this crisis and to continue learning from our community-based organizations on how they are providing help on the front lines. I have worked with local leaders in my district, such as Reverend Sylvia King, the pastor and founder of Johnstown's Christ Centered Community Church, which provides drug recovery services and counseling. I have also worked with local law enforcement and other treatment groups to make sure the necessary resources are available to help those in need. Here in Congress we also need to be looking at legislative responses to help address this issue. In the past, I have supported increased funding for the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which provides resources and support for heroin victims through prevention and education programs as well as drug treatment and enforcement. I am also a cosponsor of legislation that has been introduced by Representatives Susan Brooks and Joe Kennedy--the Heroin and Prescription Opioid Abuse Prevention, Education, and Enforcement Act-- to reauthorize the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs that are so critical to local law enforcement efforts, to increase access to the life-saving opioid reversal drug Naloxone, and to raise public provider and patient awareness of opioid drugs and their link to heroin. We must remember heroin's victims, such as Jared Carter and so many other like him, who have lost their lives. Let's galvanize the support necessary to stop these tragedies. We must be mindful in that people, as they watch this discussion this evening, may know somebody who is hurting right now, somebody in need. It may be somebody, himself, who is watching. Get help. Reach out. Don't do this alone. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire, and I thank the gentlewoman from New Hampshire for organizing this Special Order. I look forward to continuing to work back home and here in D.C. to address this crisis.

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 681, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ROTHFUS

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his remarks. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just talk about this word denial that we hear thrown around a lot in this debate. There has been no denial, Mr. Speaker, of the benefits that humanity has enjoyed because of fossil fuel use over the last decades. Again, I am going to pull up this chart here. The benefits are clear. The lower left graph is GDP per person in the world. It has skyrocketed, coincidentally, with the increase of energy use. But life expectancy has skyrocketed over the last 200 years, again, coincident with increased energy use, access to reliable, clean energy. It is no wonder. You consider how energy is deployed. Take water, for example. The tremendous progress that we have made with clean water and pumping stations and ways to pull water in and to clean it, that is all done using fossil fuel-based energy, whether it is coal, gas, oil. There has been a tremendous success over the last 200 years as humanity has looked for energy and used fossil fuels-based energy products. Mr. Speaker, if President Obama and the unelected Federal bureaucrats at EPA had installed today's regulatory regime in the 19th century, my district and this country would look vastly different. Access to reliable, affordable energy has improved the quality of life of people wherever it is available, which is why the Clean Power Plan is so deeply misguided. It will also raise energy prices again by $289 billion through 2030, fulfilling a promise that the President made in 2008 when he said electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. But minority communities will be especially hard-hit. Again, a study from the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that the Clean Power Plan would increase poverty among African Americans by 22 percent and Hispanics by 26 percent. This is not acceptable. In addition, the President's energy agenda constrains our energy mix and distorts the market to benefit certain politically favored technologies, regulations that reduce Americans' access to reliable, affordable energy sources, endangers our grid stability, putting millions at risk of losing power during times of peak demand. Meanwhile, the Clean Power Plan will avert only two one-hundredths of a degree Celsius of warming over the next 85 years. That is less than 2 percent of 1 degree Celsius. It is not a fair tradeoff. American energy policy should promote economic growth and prosperity so that we can tackle our debt. This is such an important point, Mr. Speaker. When we have these debates and conversations about whether it is going on in Paris, whether it is going on in Congress, and we talk about American energy and coal and gas, nuclear, other forms, it is not all pain, the pain that those who are running around and saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Time and again, their predictions have been proved false. It is undeniable, Mr. Speaker, that access to affordable, reliable energy has greatly advanced humanity. And humanity can figure it out. We have made tremendous, tremendous progress with the environment over the last 50, 60 years. Certainly we have seen that in Western Pennsylvania, and that progress is going to continue. It continues, in part, because we have access to great, reliable, abundant, cheap electricity. Fossil fuels have enabled that progress and will continue to enable that progress. As we meet the challenges of a changing climate, Mr. Speaker, it is human ingenuity that is going to pull us through, human beings, persons, empowered to live lives freely. Look what Holland has been able to do with the sea over the last 400 years. Before the advent of all the huge machines that can move dirt around, they have been holding back the sea and building levees and dikes. It has been remarkable what the people of Holland have been able to do, even more so now that we have access to the technologies that we have. Mr. Speaker, we should be leading the world in heavy technology, as we address concerns with rising sea levels. There is no reason, Mr. Speaker, to doubt the capacity of the human person and human ingenuity to overcome these challenges that may face us. But we can't be in denial about the fact that fossil fuel energy has been a tremendous boon to humanity. In closing, Mr. Speaker, we have tremendous challenges--tremendous challenges--ahead in the coming years. We are $18 trillion in debt as a Nation, and we have tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liability. We need to be growing like you have never seen before. With access to cheap, reliable energy, we will be able to pull ourselves out of debt. We will begin to have that renaissance in our economy. We have to meet those challenges we have. But if we expect to meet those challenges, if we expect to meet the commitments we have made on Social Security for Grandma and Medicare and meet the commitments we have made to our veterans, tens of thousands who have sustained life- changing injuries over the last 14 years, we need to be growing again. A key access to that growth is to have access to abundant, reliable, cheap energy. We know what it has done historically: increasing incomes, lifting people out of poverty, increasing life expectancy, increasing food production, increasing water purity. Mr. Speaker, this is a success story that needs to be told. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my colleague. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

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 my Special Order.