John Shimkus

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I also recognize Al Green, who was going to do the same thing. Al Green is a Democrat. Those stories don't get reported very much when you go to a colleague, a friend, a Democrat, and say, ``Hey, I really want a few minutes so I can talk about my parents,'' and he was happy to do that, but he just ran out of time and had to run to the plane. So, my thanks to him. It was about this time 5 years ago that I came to the floor to honor my mom and dad, Gene and Kathleen Shimkus, as they were celebrating their 65th wedding anniversary. It was my hope that I would do so again this week, honoring their 70th wedding anniversary, but that was not to be. My mom passed away on April 6 of this year. Now, as I have done this week a couple of times, it is time to thank my parents for their incredible support throughout my life and particularly these last 24 years. My mom and dad were both local Collinsville kids. Dad was raised on South Clinton by his grandparents, and my mom was raised on Fairway Boulevard in State Park. So from Collinsville High School, Holy Cross Lutheran Church, and raising seven children, they knew a lot of people. Mom kept the local yard sign book. It was difficult for anyone to tell my mom no. She was loved. My dad would put up the yard signs and take them down. Mom also was involved in many early envelope stuffing parties for political mailings. Mom and dad covered the parades in Madison County, those that I attended and those that I could not. Dad drove and mom organized the walkers, signs, and candy. She helped fill the ranks with grandchildren, especially Adam, Gene, Elizabeth, Niki, Tim, Terry, and Dusty. And when out-of-state grandchildren were in town, they, too, were drafted to fill the ranks. Among these were Matthew, Maria, and Emily, along with Jennifer and Katy. Of course, I already spoke about my sons, about David's, Joshua's, and Daniel's participation in these parades. Mom and dad could be counted on to watch our kids at a moment's notice. Dad picked me up from the airport when rides failed. It would be dad who would respond quickly when we locked ourselves out of the car or locked ourselves out of the house. And who can forget the Minnie Winnie that they purchased to make it easier for my family to get around during the 1996 campaign. Mom was elected to my open township seat. She served for 20 years. She loved being a trustee and supporting the local senior center run by the township. She continued to be friends to all, even those who identified as political opponents. In a story covering her retirement, she called herself the independent grandma. She referred to herself as the momma bear protecting her cubs. She sure defended me. She went on the attack against those who she thought were inappropriately attacking her son. Collinsville has historically been a blue-collar and Democratic community. But the Collinsville Democrats are conservative Democrats. They support organized labor, attend church, are fiscally conservative, and support the right to life and the Second Amendment. The love and respect that the community had for my parents allowed them to give me, a Republican, a chance at elected office. I still believe that family is the major building block of our society. My family is the building block that I stood on multiple times as I served the people of southern Illinois. I am not sure I could have even taken on the challenge to run without the help of my mom and dad. I recognize their sacrifice and support and thank them. Hebrews 4:9 says, ``There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God.'' My mom is enjoying her Sabbath-rest, but we still miss her.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my colleague and friend.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, who has the right to close?

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Madam Speaker, this amendment would prohibit the use of any funds to finalize or implement or enforce the EPA's recent proposal to maintain the current Particulate Matter National Air Ambient Quality Standard. In April of this year, the EPA proposed retaining the existing particulate matter standard. The standard is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. It was last reviewed and substantially tightened in 2013 during the previous administration. The current EPA undertook the required 5-year review of the PM standard. In a resounding 5-to-1 decision, the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee voted to retain the standard. The CASAC determined that there were substantial uncertainties with studies alleging to demonstrate health effects below the current standard. Following the requirements of the regulatory process, the EPA conducted a science-based review and analysis of the relevant data, and it proposed retaining the current PM standards. So if I have this right, the EPA conducted a scientific review and analysis, it followed the requisite Administrative Procedures Act process, and it made a regulatory proposal which it still will take public comment on, review the feedback, and eventually make a final determination. So where is the misstep here that requires this kind of amendment? Did the agency falter by listening to science? Did the agency falter by following the rulemaking process? What this amendment does is replace EPA's science-based analysis and proposal with a politically motivated Congressional edict. PM2.5 emissions have dropped 37 percent over the last two decades. Combined pollutant emissions have declined 74 percent since 1970. The U.S. has some of the lowest PM2.5 emissions in the world, including five times below the global average and seven times below Chinese levels, thanks to our rigorous Clean Air Act process. Our air is cleaner, and under this administration, our economy has simultaneously been stronger. Facts, science, and process, that is what we should be dictating our environmental regulatory process. Indeed, we should support a rigorous standard-setting process for the Clean Air Act. Getting this right is vital. Setting standards unnecessarily low is dangerous. The economic, social, and physical collapse of communities that follow when factories pull out or power plants close due to new standards profoundly harms families, especially the most vulnerable. Getting it right is exactly what is happening right now with the administration's proposals for particulate matter standards. The problem with my committee colleague's amendment is that it stops this important process in its tracks. It will deprive the public of the benefit of a sound science process to protect public health for all populations. Stopping the scientific process does not protect public health. Support for this amendment undermines the Clean Air Act. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Madam Speaker, I will close with this. For my colleagues who promote science, when you politically vote for science standards without the scientific process, you kind of destroy the whole EPA process. With that, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, in 1939, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Stalin's Communist Soviet Union signed a secret agreement to invade and create spheres of influence. The Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement allowed Hitler to invade the free and sovereign country of Poland, while the Soviet Union invaded the free and sovereign countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Eighty years ago today the United States responded with the Welles Declaration. Let me read it. ``Department of State, July 23, 1940, Statement by the Acting Secretary of State, the Honorable Sumner Welles. ``During these past few days the devious processes whereunder the political independence and territorial integrity of the three small Baltic republics, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, were to be deliberately annihilated by one of their more powerful neighbors, have been rapidly drawing to their conclusion. ``From the day when the people of these republics first gained their independent and democratic form of government the people of the United States have watched their admirable progress and self-government with deep and sympathetic interest. ``The policy of this Government is universally known. The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities no matter whether they are carried on by the use of force or by the threat of force. They are likewise opposed to any form of intervention on the part of one state, however powerful, in the domestic concerns of any other sovereign state, however weak. ``These principles constitute the very foundations upon which the existing relationship between the 21 sovereign republics of the New World rests. ``The United States will continue to stand by these principles, because of the conviction of the American people that unless the doctrine in which these principles are inherent once again governs the relations between nations, the rule of reason, of justice and of law-- in other words, the basis of modern civilization itself--cannot be preserved.'' Mr. Speaker, this declaration here refused to recognize the Soviet annexation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This nonrecognition lasted 5 decades. This declaration enabled the Baltic States to maintain free, diplomatic missions. And with this declaration, Executive Order 8484 protected Baltic financial assets. Today, the United States joins Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in remembering this declaration and recommitting ourselves to peace, democracy, freedom, and the rule of law. Subsequently, their entrance into NATO and the European Union assures them of being part of the family of western democracies.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise again, this time to thank my boys, now young men, for their love, support, and understanding during my time as a Member of Congress. As I stated yesterday, when I was sworn in for my first term in January 1997, David was 3 years old, Joshua was 1 year old. In 1999, Daniel was born. After completing this term, I will have served 24 years. My sons will be 28, 25, and 21, respectively. So their entire lives have been having their dad as a Member of Congress. I always joked that, in the early days, the boys were packageable. In the district, we just packed them up and hauled them around. Yes, this meant diapers, changes of clothes, Lunchables. Well, you get the idea. Yet they had a chance to visit county and State fairs. They also had to sit through more than their fair share of political dinners, and, oh, the parades in every season and in every weather condition. Fruities and Tootsie Rolls were our chosen candy. A child can only eat so many. As they grew, they started to be involved in other activities. I tried to be as supportive as possible. Whether it was recreational soccer, singing in the St. Louis Children's Choirs, Suzuki violin lessons, or activities at church and school, I tried to pick up the slack where and when I could. I am still burdened by the events missed. One particular troubling time was missing an entire baseball season. David's games were on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and in that year, we were either traveling to D.C., in D.C., or returning home. Because of a fluke in the schedule, I had a chance to make a game, so I hopped on a plane, just to find out that, while I was landing, it was raining. I did help coach Joshua's soccer team 1 or 2 years. Sometimes I was that good example and sometimes I was not. I cheered loudly and supportably for Daniel. Sometimes I was that good example in the stands and sometimes not. I think my problem was trying to make up for missed time, becoming too engaged in their competitions. Having one type A parent is challenging, but having two can be overwhelming. You have to ask my sons how they perceived their father. To me, they continued to be supportive and knew that I was making every effort to share in their life activities. This is something that I try to do even today, much to their chagrin. David now works for a major utility as a computer programmer. Joshua is here on the Hill after a stint in the Peace Corps. Daniel is attending a major university closer to home. We check in frequently and continue to have each other's backs. The boys, now young men, continue to be close and also check in with each other. They probably spend much of their time talking about their parents. Mr. Speaker, I want to publicly thank them for their support over the years. I want to apologize for the times that I placed work over family and ask their forgiveness. I am very proud of them.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise with concerns about the troubling pattern of legislating national chemical policy based upon emotions rather than scientific fact, including in this NDAA. I am referring specifically to certain anti-science, anti-practicality, and potentially anti-soldier provisions involving this bill related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS. PFAS is not one well-known substance; it is actually a class of thousands of different chemicals of which we know very little about. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there is no precise, clear definition of what constitutes a PFAS substance, with the lowest total of several estimates of PFAS encompassing more than 5,000 substances. The dots on this chart represent the scope of 5,070 substances identified on the Environmental Protection Agency's current PFAS master list. The 29 dots that are highlighted represent those individual PFAS for which EPA has a reliable scientific method to test their presence in drinking water. Finally, the two red dots are the only two that we think are problematic to human health, and that is PFOA and PFOS. Some of the uses of specific PFAS chemicals the Federal Food and Drug Administration has approved for use: heart stents, in this case, for patients suffering from artery blockage; and occluders for infants suffering from the congenital heart condition known as an atrial septal defect, which plugs a hole in the heart. I don't have a poster for the next chart on health, but 40 new fluorine-containing drugs were introduced to the market from 2001 to 2011, including those that treat cancer, respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular conditions, and infectious diseases. Regardless, section 331 of this NDAA prohibits DOD from buying any personal care items, dental floss, or sunscreen that carries PFAS. This doesn't mean just the two PFAS we know about; it means the thousands for which we know nothing. This includes any safer alternative product with a different PFAS. We should know what this means for our troops sitting in the desert Sun in far-off places before Congress summarily takes these products away, some of which have already been approved for use by other Federal agencies. Separately, section 332 of this NDAA requires certain DOD PFAS cleanups under the Superfund to use the strictest standards, nullifying Superfund, which relies on cleanups ``assuring'' protection of human health and the environment and being ``relevant and appropriate under the circumstances.'' In other words, for only DOD, section 332 in this NDAA disregards site characteristics; prevents more practical, protective cleanups; and focuses only on being more stringent. This kind of policymaking is punitive; it is wasteful; and it is unscientific. Later we will debate the Delgado amendment, which some suggest is a technical fix to the Toxic Release Inventory language Congress added in NDAA 2020. This amendment, however, is not a technical fix, and it raises serious policy questions that regular order would have done a much better job of settling. Mr. Speaker, it doesn't have to be this way, with Congress playing scientist. EPA has been working diligently to understand the health effects of the seven most common PFAS while simultaneously investigating the hazards of another five. EPA also just released the Toxic Release Inventory mandates for 172 PFAS and is finalizing a Safe Drinking Water Act regulatory determination, is completing regulation preventing market access for long-chain PFAS, and is evaluating the need for Clean Air Act and Superfund regulation of certain PFAS. Mr. Speaker, I hope conference negotiation will remove these troublesome provisions, or at least significantly modify them to align with the realities of our fighting men and women, their needs in the field, and not arbitrarily restrict things based upon anxiety and the lack of science.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, you know, the clock keeps ticking, and before you know it, my time as a Member of Congress will end, so I need to start now saying thank you to some of those folks who have committed their lives in helping me and supporting me in my political and governmental career. In Genesis 2, we find God instituting marriage: It is not good for man to be alone. I will create for him a helpmate. That is why a man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home. I have been extremely blessed to have Karen as my partner and helpmate for 33 years. We will celebrate our 33rd wedding anniversary this Saturday. Karen and I met at my last Active-Duty Army station in Monterey, California. She allowed me to drag her to my hometown of Collinsville, where I had a teaching job lined up. We have been there ever since. Karen has allowed me to run for various political offices, winning some races, losing some races. Whether it was my first race for the county board or my last one for Congress, she always supported me. She always answered the call when needed. It could be stuffing envelopes, painting signs, walking door to door, participating in parades, attending hostile debates, or speaking for me at events when I had a conflict. I never knew her once to say no. You will have to ask her if she enjoyed any of it, but whether she enjoyed it or not, she always participated gracefully. Our sons are now young men at 27, 25, and 20 years old. I really became an absentee father upon my election to Congress. You see, my two boys were 3 and 1 at the time. Finishing my 24th year tells you that their entire life has consisted of me being a Member of Congress and my wife, Karen, being a single parent. Our boys have turned out to be nice and respectful young men, and Karen gets the credit. Our marriage is founded on Christ and His church on Earth. Karen is a trained director of Christian education. She has her masters in organ performance and has taught music at the grade school and high school level. I am a former jock, Army officer, and a back patter. We complement each other. And, again, as it says in Genesis: the two shall be one flesh. We are partners. We are a team. The decades have flown by, and I will never be able to adequately thank Karen for her love and support over the years. She is ready to have me home more, and I am ready to be home. COVID-19 has already allowed us to test this theory of being home more than apart. I think we are going to do just fine. Thank you, Karen. I owe you a debt of gratitude, and so does this Nation for allowing and supporting my service to it.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I oppose the Delgado amendment. Beware of a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is not a technical fix or a clarification of last year's NDAA. There were no colloquies, report language, or public statements rejecting TRI exemptions for PFAS in connection with last year's NDAA. With zero hearings on this topic, this amendment would greatly benefit from regular order to appreciate its impact, which would be going through the Energy and Commerce Committee. TRI contains several reporting exemptions, including de minimis amount in chemical mixtures, when the chemical is in an article, and if the chemical is a cleaning substance or used for research. Madam Speaker, the Delgado amendment would strip these exemptions, and I urge its rejection.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I was here on the floor yesterday evening to debate the amendments under the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction that were airdropped into this Transportation and Infrastructure bill. This is another one. Although the intent is good, it is a terrible amendment because it didn't go through regular order. The committee of jurisdiction didn't get a chance to understand it and debate it, and I will explain why. My constituents get tired of process arguments, and also a lot of Members get tired of that. We used to have some very powerful committees in this institution, and Members would develop subject- matter expertise through the years of hearings and detail-focused markups. When we moved bills through regular order it would help avoid unintended consequences above bad public policy, and this amendment is another example of bad public policy. So while I appreciate the well-meaning sentiments behind the sponsors, including the emphasis the amendment places on prioritizing communities who cannot afford lead pipe replacements, the way this amendment is drafted leaves me with many questions about how it operates and that it won't actually result in the claims of its sponsors. First, the amendment authorizes a brand-new comprehensive lead program, which is not well-defined, on top of the existing lead reduction program which is defined. I am sure my colleagues don't even know we have a lead reduction program right now under current law. We know the existing lead reduction program contains education and lead service line replacements. All we know about the comprehensive lead program is that it pays to remove lead service lines. This seems like less but calling it comprehensive certainly suggests more. In addition, this amendment authorizes $4.5 billion per year for both programs. Does this mean $4.44 billion is supposed to go to the new, undefined comprehensive program and $60 million to the existing defined lead reduction program? Are they supposed to be treated equally? On the question of funding, the amount authorized to be spent in 1 year is 300 percent more than the entire amount of Federal funding for major drinking water aid programs. It is actually about one-half of the EPA's entire annual budget. The regular lead reduction program which was authorized at $60 million per year and took 4 years to establish is now just starting to award funds. Since the comprehensive program is a separate program, we can expect this program to take longer to get going, but in reality, pushing this unprecedented level of funding out the door might be aspirational rather than realistic. That would be a shame for those communities who need it most. Second, the amendment waives any requirements for matching funds from the water systems or communities that obtain them. On top of that, this amendment waives any requirement for any person to pay for replacement of their personally-owned portion of lead service lines, whereas the existing program waives this expense for low-income people. This means people who have the financial resources to afford their own replacements don't have to use them at all because the new comprehensive program will pick up the check for them. That is not very progressive. Compensating the wealthy for these replacements both now and in the future is an especially harsh consequence for U.S. taxpayers, but that is what this amendment does. Flint was a failure at all levels, and it happened because of money in politics. The city of Flint wanted off Detroit water because they felt they were being gouged on their rates. The city council set an artificial political deadline for transition that wasn't based on the engineering needs of the system's water chemistry. The State cut the city slack because the city was in receivership and didn't pursue enforcement. EPA was aware of the high-level readings but minimized their impact to avoid causing a panic and slowed-walked the legal response. The biggest problem was that no one told the public. Flint suffered because of that, and the people living in the most neglected areas of Flint suffered the most. So while this amendment guarantees priority funding for cities and water utilities for low-income folks, this amendment does not mandate that these households get their lead service lines replaced first or that they target the worst contamination. Let me repeat that. Under this amendment, you can be the reason your city or utility gets moved to the front of the line, but that city does not have to replace the poorest and most dangerous lead service lines. This is another example of why we shouldn't stick safe drinking water amendments on a transportation bill. It bastardizes the process and creates poor public policy like this amendment. I ask for a ``no'' vote. In fact, Chairman DeFazio in the Rules Committee once said: I have no idea what these amendments mean because I had no jurisdiction on this process. So with that, Madam Speaker, vote ``no'' on this very poorly drafted amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, so here we are. I am down on the floor with my good friend, Frank Pallone, who I am a fan of. And, actually, I am a fan of Jeff Carroll, which probably surprises a lot of people. What we are doing here today, and they know it, just goes too far. Here we are, on a transportation and infrastructure bill, debating energy and telecommunications and healthcare issues. The preeminent committee in Washington, D.C., is the Energy and Commerce Committee. I proudly served on it for 24 years. We take pride in that. But here, today, we have allowed leadership to take our jurisdiction and give it to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. There are a lot of Committee on Energy and Commerce chairmen and ranking members who are rolling over in their graves today, and I am particularly disappointed. The original bill that came out of T&I, it is right here, $500 billion. This is the bill that came out of T&I. The bill that we are debating today, $1.5 trillion. Where did the trillion come from? Well, it came from the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, which added bills from other jurisdictions that had no hearings, no markups, no process. In fact, I see my good friend Mr. Doyle here, and I wrote down what he said: There ought to be a deliberative discussion on that provision. I think it was on autonomous vehicles. Well, we didn't have a deliberative discussion because we allowed, for some reason, the powers that may be, and I think I can probably surmise, and I will get to that when I get close to the end of my 15 minutes. But, I am heartbroken. Tim Scott was on the floor of the Senate last week, talking about how the process is broken in the Senate on criminal justice reform. He couldn't even get a debate on his bill. This is an example of a broken process. As I leave my last year in Congress, I am saddened. I have loved it, 24 years, made great friends, did some good public policy. But, gang, something is wrong here when we don't even stand up for the jurisdiction of our own committee and allow our committees to work in a bipartisan manner to bring bills that are acceptable. It is sad. Mr. Speaker, I have been joined by Bruce Westerman from Arkansas, who wants to talk a few minutes on some energy provisions that are in a T&I bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

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

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 45 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. So, CBO came out with a report on this bill. It will add to the deficit $450 billion. That is the CBO report just out today. Now, we spent a lot of money this year. I guess I am really getting reflective because when I ran 20 years ago, I was railing against the national debt, which was at that time $4 trillion. That is why I ran. Four trillion dollars. Now it is, what, 26? And most of us joined in a lot of that this Congress because of the pandemic, and I get it. But I believe that eventually someone has got to pay the piper. And who will that be? Well, it won't be me, I am going to retire, unless they go after my Social Security and my pension fund and my investments. But it is going to be our children and our grandchildren. So eventually we are going to have to get serious about this. This bill out of the T&I Committee came out at $500 billion. Out of the Rules Committee on the floor it added $1 trillion. And, again, as we have discussed today, most of that additional trillion dollars hasn't been vetted by the committee, at least the Committee of Energy and Commerce, which is the predominant jurisdiction on this en bloc amendment. That is why I am here and have been asked to speak on this. We have got a DOE program. We have got another DOE program. We have got FCC broadband. We have got another interconnectivity. We have another FCC program. We have got chemical safety stuff--which if you ever want to be an expert in an area, be an expert on chemical issues in this Congress, and you will be beating your head in. A clean energy sustainable accelerator; that sounds like a T&I provision. Grid security. FCC. EPA. Booster seat labeling. That was my original bill 20 years ago; child safety seats. NTSA. Vehicle bumpers and hoods. Consumer protection and safety. DOE. Voltage requirements. Energy. Safe Drinking Water Act, one of my favorites; we worked in a bipartisan manner. I know brownfields was mentioned; we worked in a bipartisan manner. Replace fossil fuel fire technology in a T&I bill. That is interesting. GAO report. Territories. I can go on, but it is a tad frustrating when, again, you have a committee of jurisdiction that works well. We have credible hearings. We usually go through regular order. In fact, I remember my good friend, Chairman Pallone, berating us constantly about going through regular order. And regular order for us is: Have a hearing, mark it up in a subcommittee, take it to the full committee and then move it to the floor. TSCA worked that way. We worked together on that. Shoot, we don't even have a hearing on many of these bills, no less a subcommittee mark or a full committee mark. So why are we doing this? It is a waste of time. It is a waste of effort. And it is politics at its worst. Because we are giving people the chance to say, I moved my bill through the floor of the House. I am saving the Nation and our problems. Aren't you proud of me, my voters and my constituents? Hogwash. Embarrassing. I am disappointed. I am frustrated. We are in the minority. I get it. I can get beat down as good as anybody else, which I have been. But really, on bills like battery technology that we can move in a bipartisan manner and get to the floor, we have to shove it in a Transportation and Infrastructure bill? No, we don't. Even in virtual Congresses we could pass a battery technology improvement bill. I would grant it. I think part of the reason why we are shoving all this in is because coronavirus and social distancing and getting together is going to make it difficult to move things to the floor. So this T&I bill is going to get off the floor, open up the kitchen sink, throw everything in it whether it is germane or not. That is what happened here. Don't be surprised. And my colleagues who are complaining that it is not going to see the light of day, it is not. But I don't mind the debate. I just wish we would have it in the committee. I wish we would have it at a hearing. I wish we would have a subcommittee mark. I mean, we are in the minority, we are still going to get our heads beat in. But do we have to do it in this manner? So, again, a T&I bill came out of their committee this size, $500 billion, came to the floor with another $1 trillion and 2,000 pages, mostly from jurisdictions that didn't have hearings, didn't have comments, just Members' wish lists that they knew they could attach. It is not going to go anywhere, so open it up. Everyone can claim victory that they have saved the Republic. Well, they added $450 billion to the deficit on a meaningless bill that appeases the base, especially the far left environmental group that want a Green New Deal. The public has rejected the Green New Deal. And if they haven't, then let's have that debate on the floor and in the committee. Why do we do it here? It shouldn't be in a T&I bill. It should be in the Environment Subcommittee, my subcommittee--well, ranking member. And I will end on this because my time is running out. I have been lectured many, many years in the committee about our jurisdiction and regular order. And here we are. I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker. We are better than this. The institution is worse because of what we are seeing today, and I think what is going to happen is we are going to continue to lose the power of the committees if we let the Speakers, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, consolidate power. And our committees better start standing up for themselves if we want to see progress in the future, if we want to reclaim our roles as representatives. We have become experts in these committees of jurisdiction. Twenty- four years, we better. If we are not experts, then what have we been doing for 24 years? We are about as smart as any public policy guy in telecommunications or in healthcare or in energy. So why is it in a transportation bill? Just because coronavirus, election year politics, Green New Deal. And I would just warn my colleagues, I am going to go back and I am going to teach once I leave this Chamber, and I am going to use this as an example of a failed system that is not operating the way in which we have been able to do for many years. It looks like the Speaker is about ready to gavel me down, so before he does that, I thank my colleagues for letting me preach. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

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

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