John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I would reserve the balance of my time unless my colleague yielded back.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I appreciate my colleague coming down to the floor, especially when, in his opening statement, he says he wants drug costs to go down now. It is not going to happen now because it is in a package that is not going to be accepted by the Senate and the President is not going to sign. So, if we really want drug prices to go down now, we would have done what we did out of the full committee. We would have packaged this up with H.R. 965, the CREATES Act, which is a bipartisan agreement that is part of this bill, which would penalize branded drugmakers that withhold samples from generic manufacturers. We would have brought to the floor, either separately or in a package, H.R. 1499, the Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act, bipartisan out of the committee. This would ban pay-for-delay agreements, which are a problem. And we would have brought up H.R. 938, the Bringing Low-cost Options and Competition while Keeping Incentives for New Generics, which is called the BLOCKING Act, which would limit the first-approved generic maker's ability to stall another rival's launch. I think we all want to get there. I think we will get there. We still are going to go through this process. But, make no mistake, this is not going to be signed into law that we can go down to the White House for a ceremony. Again, I would encourage my colleagues to work with the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend Frank Pallone, and we can address this amendment and other processes and hopefully bring the bipartisan bill to the floor that would address a lot of other colleagues' concerns and really work on a bipartisan agreement that, then, by that bipartisan approach, the Senate would have to really look at seriously, and, hopefully, we would convince the President to sign the bill. I am just a simple man from southern Illinois, taught high school civics: two Chambers, President has got to sign the bill. Sometimes when we use all this time, it is for other purposes than really trying to have a bill become law. So, with that, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, obviously, I rise in opposition to this, and I understand my colleague from Florida's great expertise in this area and served in the previous administration. But when you have to subsidize a plan--there are a couple of problems. First of all, before ObamaCare came into being, or the Affordable Care Act--I am not trying to be disrespectful--insurance was regulated by States. The new law yanked that away from States to the point where they created a system of mandatory coverage that was unaffordable. So then part of the plan was, well, we need to subsidize these plans because, actuarially, they are not going to work without government intervention. Now, the Court case on this, we thought--and actually, I guess the Court case is still pending. Can the Federal Government force someone to buy something they don't want to buy? And we probably will hear another ruling on that. Initially, they said, yeah. The real debate shifted to: Does the Federal Government have the power to tax, versus do you have the power to force someone to buy something they don't want to buy? So the Supreme Court, in that ruling, said, since the Federal Government has the power to tax, this is really a tax; then, yeah, we can do this. So then we had the rollout. And the rollout, I think, in the public's eye, as a whole--first, due to the delay because of the computer system, the network couldn't manage it. And then, just the cost. As I said before, premiums way too high; deductibles too high; people forced to buy an insurance product that they could not use. People would go in and say, oh, I got coverage. Okay. But your coverage is you still got to pay the first $10,000 in deductible. And people say, what? That is not very good insurance. Well, that is what we created in this national healthcare delivery system. The public rendered judgment, as they do, through the political process. Republicans came back into control. Now, what we are trying to do is return to federalism. We have returned to States' regulation of insurance; provide more options to consumers. That is what is occurring now, so the higher cost or the costs are going down. In fact, I think there was a projection that 30 percent--there was 30 percent increases until this last cycle, when there was a 3 percent increase. Why? Well, because, under the law, there are 1332 waivers which allow States to present another package; and you see our citizens, our constituents, voting with their feet to go to these State-based plans. That is a good thing. So we are trying--we don't want to turn the clock back again. So that is why I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the gentlewoman's amendment. Although brought well-intentioned and lovingly, I know. Mr. Chairman, I reject that. I ask for a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, it is, again, great to be here this morning. I appreciate Speaker Pelosi coming down and talking about bipartisan solutions and working together. Obviously, on this piece of legislation, I think the terminology was demanding a plan for the administration. Well, that assumes that the administration would sign this bill. That also assumes that the Senate would pass this bill. Even if the President would sign a bill that he doesn't want to enact, he would probably then veto the bill he just signed. Then we would sustain his veto. If we want to move forward, then we want to do things that can get through the Senate and get to the President's desk. That is why, all afternoon yesterday, we talked about--and this amendment has some of those issues in it--adaptation, resiliency, grid modernization, and how do you adapt. We appreciate the intent on which this amendment is being brought forward. On another cautionary note, in the Paris accord, when it talks about addressing loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change, it is referring to the Paris accord's provision for developing countries. That accord doesn't have provisions for developed countries. Maybe as things move forward with my colleague from New Jersey, we can make sure we address that appropriately. We would like to have these studies done before we go into international agreements when we don't know how they are going to respond, versus after the fact, just like the cart before the horse. Then we will know that this is a good deal, that we should do this, or maybe that we shouldn't. We had a couple of amendments last night that talked about all the bad aspects but none of the positive aspects. We also had a couple that said let's look at the good and the bad. I would suggest that, in an amendment, there may be some areas of the country in which the infrastructure is not going to be harmed. In fact, an area of the country might even benefit from these changes. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, this is the perfect example of an amendment that, as we move something forward that might be able to be considered by the Senate and signed by the President, I think we would be very interested in dealing with. Although, I guess I am a little confused. The amendment says we don't want to be technologically specific, although you mentioned the benefits of carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, which is an amendment we had in the committee to try to say these are some good technologies we ought to consider. A lot of folks on our side have been excited about the energy renaissance, the ability to recover more oil. We know the great stories of Texas and the ability to capture carbon and sequester it with utilization for money to help deal with other issues. I think when we move in the direction of a bill that we plan to get through the Senate and the House, we should keep our communications open because I think there are some bipartisan solutions. The Republicans have always talked about conservation, innovation, and adaptation. This is part of the innovation package. We also have advanced nuclear in that package. We also have pump storage and batteries in that package. I think there are opportunities here. We offered, as I said, in the committee, the value of nuclear and advanced nuclear energy, hydropower, carbon capture, and the production and export of natural gas. Part of my portfolio of volunteer activities is in the Eastern European bloc. Obviously, the ability to export natural gas has been a boon to these countries that don't want to be enslaved to Russian natural gas. Again, there are things we can do. When we talk about innovation necessary to produce a strong economy, energy security, and lower emissions, we have to focus on the benefits of these technologies. While I can agree with the idea of this amendment, I think it falls short of what is necessary for Congress to assist our priorities. Mr. Chair, I encourage a ``no'' vote, but I look forward to working with my colleague in the future, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we really don't need a Paris Agreement to meet substantial changes in the carbon dioxide, or, as my colleague was speaking, she was really referring to the Clean Air Act and the four criteria pollutants that we have so aggressively addressed since 1992. Having said that, what is better for the poor and the downtrodden is to have a job. What is better for their health and economic opportunity is to have a job. What also helps is that they have a good paying job that provides great healthcare benefits. So, from 2015 to 2018, out of the industrialized countries, the United States is the number one reducer of carbon dioxide--number one. We didn't have to do it with all these international accords. We do it through innovation, technology, and advancement. But carbon dioxide emissions went up last year. That is a known fact. The question is why. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have one of the best economies that I have ever served in in the House of Representatives, where there are help wanted signs all over the place. As the manufacturing sector grows, there is a need to address these emissions. That is why Republicans continue to look forward to the day when we can join with our Democratic colleagues on conservation, innovation, and adaptation, moving some bills and processes through the floor that will be received well in the Senate and to the President's desk. I think, rather than focus on the finding, we should debate bipartisan solutions such as boosting research, advanced technologies, and promoting innovation. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 9.

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, again, to my colleague, and I appreciate it. She has me at a disadvantage because I have a huge ag district, 33 counties in southern Illinois, more pigs than people. I have corn, beans, and the like, so we appreciate this; and we appreciate this amendment because of the voluntary action of it and trying to incentivize and appreciate what our agriculture community has done because, as you know, other proposals out there that are debated in Washington might have some severe effects on agriculture. I also want to take this time to say we did a lot in the last Congress. I think the misnomer is that if we don't say ``climate change'' and we move good public policy, that we haven't done anything. Through the House, we passed: The Energy Efficient Government Technology Act; that was actually voice voted and sponsored by Anna Eshoo from California; Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Act, Bob Latta from Ohio; Streamlining Energy Efficiency for Schools Act, which this is another thing we did in the last Congress; Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, Pete Olson from Texas; Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, the SENSE Act; Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns Act by Bill Johnson; Responsible Disposal Reauthorization Act of 2017, another bill to reauthorize the West Valley Act. Of course, I am a proud sponsor, with a huge bipartisan vote, for what was H.R. 3053, which was how do you deal with the nuclear waste provision. So we actually moved a lot of bills in the last Congress, and many of those bills were in a bipartisan manner. Yes, we do not carry the mantle of ``Paris'' or ``climate,'' but not everything has to be a subtitle of that major provision, especially if you are doing what we are trying to do in the House, which is bring to the floor bills in a bipartisan manner. Conservation, that would be like energy efficiency, new source review, forest management practices. Being from Washington State, the gentlewoman understands the forest issues and the concerns that we do more forest management practices. Maybe some of our fires would be less so. Innovation; advanced nuclear power; carbon capture; utilization; sequestration, which we spoke about in an amendment previously; and also pump storage batteries. Also, from Washington State, the gentlewoman knows the benefits of hydropower, and if we can pump that water back up and have a continuous cycle, that is a pretty green use of power. Adaptation, grid modernization, resiliency, and things on GMO crops, crops that can change if the environment is changing, if the growing cycles change. Right now we have drought-resistant corn. We might have to have corn that grows in wetter conditions. That is all part of the adaptation that we need to talk about. So I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment and the chance to discuss these issues. I support voluntary action. The idea of this amendment will be better served focusing on examining the costs of these commitments, like some of our Republican amendments try to do, as we move this bill outside of the committee. I oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague bringing that up. I taught high school for 4 years, so education is key. This whole provision of moving to the Paris accord was done without education of the Members of Congress. It was an executive branch decision. We can debate whether the President had the authority or didn't have the authority, but we think what happened was that there was not total buy-in. Had it been presented as an agreement or had it been presented as a treaty, it wouldn't have passed either Chamber. I do agree that education is very, very important. However, I also believe in local control. Republicans will always have a challenge with the Federal Government directing, dictating, and telling our local schools what their curriculum should be. Mr. Chair, that is why I oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.