Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I would just say: Let's do this with our eyes wide open. Trickle-down isn't going to happen. Tax reform, this is not tax reform. Certainly, tax cuts where you aid the upper-income strata and corporations at the expense of an increase of taxes to the middle class is what this is about. It is pathetic. It is devastating. It is disastrous, and it ought to be denied.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I just would love to point out, I would encourage middle class America to raise its voice. Raise your voices, because when we look at the repeal of the individual mandate that is being suggested here, you are going to rip away healthcare from some 13 million Americans, and that alongside the 36 million families in this country that are going to see a tax increase. Before that hits home, stand up and speak out. And if you are not going to get a tax increase, if you might get crumbs off the table because, remember, if you weren't at the table, and this was done in veiled secrecy, if you are not at the table, you are probably on the menu. Here you are going to have these families, 36 million that will get a tax increase, but if you are going to get maybe a crumb off the table, that sunsets, and the other benefits are going to go forever. This is a monumental change in a tax cut policy. It is not reform. It is tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations at the expense of working families. Finally, I would just make mention that there would be an immediate $25 billion cut in Medicare. The efforts that were made under the last administration to bring more stability to Medicare, to make certain that it had a longer life out there, are now going to be wiped away. That is a very important program to Americans, very important program. We cannot afford to have this go through in veiled secrecy on a rush in the next day or two without America knowing what is on the table.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Garamendi, I would point out, in addition to tinkering with the public utility bonds out there, that public utility financing that will be devastated by this bill, adds to the further woes for building our investments and infrastructure of all kinds.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, for his leadership and hard work on the subcommittee and for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to express a few concerns with the bill before us. But first, let me say that I support hydropower and believe it must be maintained as an important part of our generation mix. Hydro is an excellent source of reliable, zero-emissions electricity generation. In order to address climate change and increase clean energy production, it is, indeed, critical that we make licensing and relicensing of these projects feasible. This is an important issue for my home State of New York. Hydropower resources produce 19 percent of New York State's total electricity generation in 2016. The average age of New York's hydropower facilities is over 50 years, and many projects are expected to go through the relicensing process in the next 15 years. I want to reiterate that Members on both sides of the aisle want to see these projects developed within reasonable timelines. I understand the current challenges in relicensing and the desire to bring greater certainty to the process. However, I do not think the bill before us would address those concerns in a balanced approach, which takes into account the legitimate concerns of State and Tribal governments and environmental stakeholders. The process that produced this bill was flawed from the beginning. The committee failed to hold a hearing to understand the concerns of State and Tribal governments or Federal resource agencies. These entities would be those whose authorities may be limited by FERC under this legislation. The bill enables FERC to set a schedule that may limit State and Tribal governments and other Federal agencies from having the time to fully consider and, yes, set conditions on license applications. An enforceable FERC schedule, outside the control of these agencies, may create a perverse incentive for applicants to slow-walk their responses to information requests from other agencies and State governments, effectively running out the clock and preventing conditions from being required on the application. Our water resources are precious. Different stakeholders have a variety of expectations and demands--power generation, recreation, wildlife and fish habitat, drinking water, and agriculture. Managing these resources effectively is about balancing those often-competing interests. The Democratic alternative addresses the schedule concern by allowing stakeholders to be involved in the creation of the schedule-setting process. But I also believe FERC has some of the necessary tools already in the underutilized Integrated Licensing Process which encourages all stakeholders to engage in a robust, information sharing process up front. Now, finally, to set the record straight, I listened intently as the gentlewoman from Washington State, the sponsor of the bill, spoke to the fact that the Standing Rock Sioux were, indeed, represented at hearings, that they had a witness at the FERC hearings. They were there to discuss pipelines and not hydro. Mr. Chairman, so I am opposing this bill today, but I hope we can move forward with a truly bipartisan process in the future to improve the licensing process while respecting the needs of all stakeholders.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Ryan-McConnell tax plan that puts the interests of wealthy elites and corporations ahead of the needs of the American people. This bill tears away protections for Americans with student loans and Americans who choose to adopt children. It strips support for individuals with unexpected health challenges, even those whose homes have burned down. Under this plan, some 8 million American families will see their taxes go up almost immediately, and millions more will face tax increases in the future. All this is done while giving permanent tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and increasing the deficit by trillions of dollars. This puts America's social safety net and our economic future in deep jeopardy. This is not the type of tax relief the American middle class and working poor need--or deserve--right now. Mr. Speaker, I urge every one of my colleagues to put the needs of the American people first and oppose the very disastrous Ryan-McConnell tax plan.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, again and again, President Donald Trump has promised tax reform that would help the middle class; and again and again, the President has broken those promises. Instead of helping America's middle class and the working poor, his proposals offer big breaks for millionaires and corporations, and painful cuts for nearly everyone else. The House Republican plan rolled out yesterday, rolls over the middle class and those looking to ascend the middle class. It cuts the estate tax, a tax that only affects a few thousand of the wealthiest American families, all while raising taxes on the lowest income bracket from 10 to 12 percent. This plan slashes commonsense deductions for middle class families, including those for medical bills, student loan interest, and even mortgage interest. My Republican colleagues claim their plan would save people money, but they say nothing about the $1.5 trillion their plan would add to the deficit over the next 10 years. That is about $12,000 of debt for each American household. The American people deserve real tax reform, not just more tax cuts for the wealthy and powerful and those connected.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Reauthorizing the SBIR and STTR programs are critical to supporting our Nation's most forward-thinking entrepreneurs and innovators. I am relieved that we are preserving the critical parts of the programs and continuing to improve upon the programs themselves. These programs have proven to be one of the most successful Federal programs for technological innovation in United States history, delivering more than 70,000 patents and valuable innovations in agriculture, defense, energy, health sciences, homeland security, space, transportation, and other fields. Through Phase I and Phase II SBIR, countless jobs have been created in the capital region of New York. It is through programs such as SBIR that our region has developed the underpinnings of support for a boom in high technology innovation and economic development. One of many examples of this is Ecovative Design located within my congressional district in Green Island, New York, which has benefitted from the SBIR program over a number of years. These efforts will allow the company to continue its work on a replacement of engineered wood resins that will be economically competitive and nontoxic. The resin system represents cost and energy savings, and is capable of leveraging existing manufacturing equipment in production today. This funding will help them deliver on the promise of this innovative technology. Gavin McIntyre, cofounder and chief scientist at Ecovative said: ``We're very excited to bring our new material technology to market and displace toxic formaldehyde-based resins. The SBIR/STTR program was fundamental to how Ecovative got its start and has enabled us to continue to take risks and develop game-changing technology.'' While this bill is a positive step forward towards helping more small businesses, we must do more to help other small businesses develop these types of game-changing technologies. I recognize the value of research and I will fight to see more funding for all these agencies and, in turn, more funding for the SBIR and STTR programs.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is inhumane and unAmerican. Whatever your politics on immigration, America's DREAMers did not choose their birthplace or their path early in life. They are innocents, and they have grown up as Americans. They have attended school here alongside our own children. They share our values and our principles. They believe in the American Dream. Yes, deporting them hurts our economy, and yes, it damages our standing as a leading nation, but at its heart, this is a matter of conscience. What kind of justice will we give to kids brought here when they were 6 years old, who grew up as Americans and who have no home beyond our shores? To make them the targets of deportation is a violation of our national conscience. Congress must act now to pass legislation to protect these DREAMers. A just nation must not take lightly the judgment of the innocent. Let us not discard our friends and our neighbors for the sake of political theater, not when we can instead draw strength of heart and mind and treasure from their experience, their differences, and the many values we share in common. E pluribus unum. Out of many, we are indeed one.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Daniel, a first-generation college student.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and, Representative Garamendi, I am so honored to associate my comments with those of yours, to connect with you in this effort to make certain that we stop this foolishness coming from this House and the United States Senate that totally rejects the pleas of Americans across this country to make certain that the dynamics that drove the Affordable Care Act still stay in place, and that being affordability, accessibility, and quality of care. Those are such essential forces. They are the underpinning of the foundation of the Affordable Care Act. When I heard your expression of concern here tonight and pinpointing those various elements of the positive reinforcement that comes from the Affordable Care Act legislation, hearing the voice of two Congresswomen here from New Mexico and Ohio on the floor joining us, it reminds me that our force is the essential force on the Hill in Washington to make certain that the people's voices are heard. There is anger out there, there is injustice, there is unfairness, and it has to be addressed. I am proud of the efforts that have been made in my State. I know that you talked about the progress in California. In New York, I am proud of what the Governor, Governor Cuomo, and the legislature did in building those exchanges. It took response from each of the 50 States to make this work, or at least we had hoped each State would respond fully. But in New York, we are managing that effort through sound exchanges. I get worried when I see tweets from the President when things didn't work for awhile in the Senate, when they couldn't move forward with the repeal or repeal and delay or repeal and replace: Well, we will just let the Affordable Care Act die of its own right. What are you talking about? That sounds to me like a poor attitude, one that wouldn't do the very best to underpin, through the agencies that are connected to this legislation, to reinforce the markets out there. That is part of this response. When I hear an attitude like that expressed, I am concerned about what the voice over to these agencies will be saying: Look, we need to be a good partner, a sound partner, an effective partner with the Affordable Care Act. I don't know if we would get that. So that worries me if your attitude is let it just die and crumble. Why? Why can't you put the American public before politics? Let's do our best effort. Let's, in earnest, do our best. Let's be genuine in our approach. I think it is absolutely incredible. You know, as the Republicans, Representative Garamendi, in the Senate race to pass TrumpCare, a bill that would rip coverage away from tens of millions of people, perhaps as many as 30 million--if you would allow me to share a few stories from my district, I think it is so important to put a face onto these discussions. I have documented some of the recent stories we have heard from constituents. Cathryn, a 30-year-old in my district, left work to return to school to pursue graduate studies in social work, and she used the ACA exchange, their plans, to bridge gaps in employer-based coverage. The ACA plans provided her with essential preventative healthcare services and ensured that a major health event would not leave her bankrupt as she was doing what we asked people to do: develop your talent and your skills to serve the general public. So she was pursuing graduate studies. The security and affordability of Catherine's ACA plan was tremendously reassuring, allowing her to take risks in order to build a career in service to others. That is what the ACA afforded Catherine to do, a 30-year-old in my district. Robert, a 52-year-old in my district, purchased insurance on a healthcare exchange while suffering from diabetes. Before buying an exchange plan, Robert spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars each month just to purchase insulin, and no other health coverage. Because of the ban on discrimination that could be utilized against him based on his preexisting conditions, Robert can now afford a health plan that covers himself and his family. A couple of other examples, if you will allow me. Tracey, a 38-year-old from my district, a certified nursing assistant, needs multiple drug prescriptions to treat preexisting conditions, including diabetes. The Affordable Care Act has made it possible for Tracey to get health coverage for herself and her family. Without the ACA, Tracey would not be able to pay her doctors or her drug companies. As recently as January, Tracey was still paying off old bills for her medical care. This has provided hope for people. We need to make certain we don't have people digging deeper into their pockets for healthcare coverage. We want to relieve that pressure that is upon them. We want to make prescription drugs affordable. We want to make certain that efficiencies are there in the system so we can save, but get the care to people. That is the difference that we need to cite here. The contrast is that we are trying to make this ACA better and make it work, and we are asking for a bipartisan, bicameral, executive legislative partnership to make it better. Is that too much to ask? Let me share one more story. Elliot, a 56-year-old in the 20th Congressional District of New York lost his job in September last year after his company made a massive layoff, even though he just started his job. So through no fault of his own, he lost his employment. Elliot was then left to figure out how to support himself and his 19-year-old son who was a Syracuse University student. A COBRA plan would have cost $2,000 a month. Because of Medicaid, Elliot and his son now have quality health coverage as Elliot continues to look for work and his son is pursuing his college education. These are real stories, real hardships, real challenges, real help, real assistance that has come in the way of these families. We don't need to take that good news and suffocate it. We need to build upon these stories. Now, Senate Republicans are racing to pass a bill that would open the doors to less coverage, rip it away from tens of millions of people, and in many ways perhaps provide for an imposition of lifetime limits on care. What does that do? It is a death sentence for far too many people. It would impact severely upon those who are struggling with cancer--working their hardest to defeat that, working with their doctor, their medical community to defeat that impact of cancer in their lives--heart disease, and other long-term illnesses. My friends, this is about being a compassionate voice. It is about utilizing the advancements in medical care, technology, making affordable our healthcare system, making affordable prescription drug costs. There is improvements that we want to make, not give a tax cut for the rich, which has been a terrible response. People would say: Oh, the Affordable Care Act is not working. So if there were improvements required, be fair, be only honest with the public you represent, be there for them. Finally, the last point I will make right here is Medicaid and the changing profile of Medicaid in many of our States. In New York, people need to see where the growth in Medicaid is. And because we have a disproportionate senior population in upstate New York, you are seeing the growth of Medicaid the farther north you go. I ask my colleagues to be sensitive to their constituent base. Don't be heartless. Don't be cruel in the outcome. Walk away from this. The silence is deafening at times when it comes to some of the proposals being sent by leadership in this House and in the Senate. Silence is not what is called for here. Outspoken rejection of some of these harsh measures is what we need, and bipartisan cooperation, bicameral activity is what will serve the public best. So I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for bringing us together in what is a very important discussion here in this Special Order.

Mr. TONKO. To repeat what my colleague just said, I will say that we want to work with the American public. We have said over and over again that it is about affordability, accessibility, quality of care. Share with us the improvements that you think will work. Let us know of the hurdles in the road that you have faced. Remind us that Medicaid serves the needs of our parents and grandparents in nursing homes. Remind us that those who are born with challenges in life are served well by healthcare coverage and Medicaid. Remind us that those living with developmental disabilities, showcasing their abilities requires Medicaid to make it work; chronic illnesses requiring an insurance clause that addresses preexisting conditions, building upon an essential health benefits package. We are with you. We walk with you. We raise our voices with you. We lift our hearts with you. We want to be victorious with you and for you. Let's not let them rip away this health insurance for the opportunity to provide tax cuts for the very wealthy. Again, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak forcefully in this given Special Order. It is so important to save the Affordable Care Act, make it stronger, and respond to the needs of people across this country who are speaking out.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Certainly I understand the anger, Representative Garamendi, and I know I am not alone. I know all of my colleagues are hearing the outbursts in our given districts about the foolishness and the hard- heartedness of taking away a very valuable asset. Healthcare coverage is so important now to the American public, but in a particular way, it is near and dear to those who most recently realized that coverage. I will tell you, being on this floor when the Affordable Care Act was passed, that was a monumental effort. It was difficult to launch that program. It took a lot of hard work, years of messaging, going to hearings, working those amendments that were suggested into the discussion, and making certain that the package met the mission that we embarked upon. So it is important now to make certain that we only go forward and upward from this moment. Like many programs before the Affordable Care Act--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--they were difficult to launch; but unlike those programs, Congress and the Presidents in those given eras came forward and said: Okay. What did we learn from that launch? How can we improve upon the package? How can we strengthen some of the dynamics of concern? Here we have people, as you indicated, that are not only unwilling to make those reforms possible, but disguising what they call healthcare reform in the name of a tax package for the wealthy. How vulgar is that, when you can sweep the dollars, the savings from denying people healthcare coverage, and utilize it to relieve taxes for those most comfortable in our society? For those 400 households of which you spoke, the on-average relief was on the order of $7 million. Imagine that: taking away healthcare from people who live paycheck to paycheck in some cases, and using that to provide for tax relief for those most comfortable. That is not in keeping with the spirit of this legislation. It is not in keeping with the harmony that was necessary to create this legislation. The spirit was to speak to the fundamental needs of healthcare for individuals and families across this country to be able to get past difficult moments and situations like preexisting conditions, preexisting conditions that can be with an individual toddler from the moment of birth, as we have heard in the news. This hard-hearted approach, this senseless attitude, this insensitive expression to Americans across this country by these reform efforts, today we know that the United States Senate went forth with a vote to proceed on their efforts. What will it be? Straightforward repeal, as the President recommends, where 30-plus million people lose their healthcare coverage, you rip it away from those tens of millions? Or will it be repeal and delay? Or will it be repeal and replace? So far with the iterations, the versions of healthcare reform that have come forth from this House, that were approved in this House and sent over to the Senate, those devised by the Senate have been heartless. This is about expressing compassion, about being just and fair. Just this weekend I was with groups of constituents. The first that comes to mind is a fundraising effort for individuals who live with cystic fibrosis. Before I was even to walk into the room, where hundreds of people gathered to support the efforts for this cause, individual sets of parents came to me and said: Keep up the fight to keep Medicaid in the equation. Our daughter, our son, can't do it without Medicaid. And these people were proud of their given children, adult children, in some cases, who had graduated with honors, played athletics and were athletes, star athletes in their high school years who, then, earned full scholarships to college. And his daughter made him most proud; he cited that moment of pride when he witnessed her on her campus wheeling her IV to class. That is what we see out there, motivation, inspiration, respect for people who live with difficult challenges in life. And we were responding as a compassionate society, one that should separate us from the rest of the world because, within our abundance, we want to share that with everybody. And it is so wonderful, Representative Garamendi, that you would bring that quote from the memorial, that speaks to the abundance of those who have where we are, evidently, with some of the constructs of legislation here, adding to that abundance, at the expense of those who have precious little. And so we can do better than this. One other gathering that I attended was for developmentally disabled, differently-abled individuals whose programs focus and strengthen their abilities, focus upon and strengthen their abilities; again, people approaching me saying: Keep up the fight for Medicaid. We cannot, our consumers cannot, do it. Our loved ones cannot do it without Medicaid. And I think the rejection of Medicaid expansion in this House that was offered by this House, by this town, by Washington, to the many States across the country, the rejection by those States, I believe, was sheer politics. And so, we denied people in States who pay Federal taxes the benefits of Medicaid expansion. What sense does that make? What heart does that show? We are better than that. We are better than that. Finally, I will say this, because I know we have colleagues who are looking to share their thoughts and their stories. I looked at some constituents this weekend, in the eyes, and in heartfelt conversation said: Do you think it is fair, do you think it is just to rip away healthcare from people so you can afford a tax cut for the very wealthy? Is it fair to deny preexisting condition coverage for individuals? Is it unfair to take it away? What about the essential health benefits package, those of our neighbors and friends who struggle, who live with mental illness and mental health disorders, those who are dealing with the illness of addiction? Is it fair not to help them? I looked at them, and I said: Okay, I know who you voted for. This is a nation where we have the freedom of choice. But when we vote for whomever, it is also our duty, our responsibility to see if they are acting accordingly. Do you think your candidate of choice is being fair and just? They couldn't answer me about that situation. They wanted to redirect the conversation. Why? Because I think it is difficult to say that people, leaders in this town, the President and leaders in the House and the leaders in the Senate, are not listening to America; and so it is unfair to utilize the sweeping of services, of healthcare and response to tens of millions of individuals and families, and utilize those dollars for a tax cut for the wealthy. We are going to watch this aggressively, with laser sharp focus. The people of America have spoken. They are continuing to speak. They don't like the injustices. They don't like the unfairness. They don't like the calculated ripping away of healthcare insurance for tens of millions of people. Whether it is 30, 23, 22, 21, whatever the iteration, shame on us for allowing something like that to happen. America deserves to be--as an industrialized nation that did not have access, affordability, and quality of care as givens for many households in this country, they need to express those terms in a much better format. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Garamendi for leading us in a discussion this hour to alert people to the fact that the Democrats in this House are still battling for those families that would have healthcare coverage ripped from them so that we can afford a tax cut for the wealthy.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2910, the Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas Pipelines Act. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. We heard from FERC that 88 percent of projects are certified within 1 year following a completed application. It is clear that, under the existing process, these projects are moving forward without significant delays. We have not seen good evidence that we need to further tilt the process in favor of pipeline companies, which is what the bill before us today would do. While I am concerned about a number of provisions in this bill, I specifically want to highlight the section that would require Federal and State agencies to accept aerial survey data, such as data collected by drones, and allow these agencies to grant conditional approvals based on that data. Aerial data have limitations and can be insufficient. These data may not account for historic sites, endangered species, or wetlands. But, under this bill, agencies would be required to consider the project. Granting conditional permits based on inadequate data will ultimately not speed up the process, but what it does instead is circumvent the rights of landowners. We also should be more thoughtful about changing this process, given the implications that will impact private landowners' rights. Under the law, pipeline companies are able to use eminent domain authority, allowing these corporations to take private property to build their pipelines. This bill would further restrict the already limited opportunities that private landowners and concerned citizens have to weigh in on proposed projects. Streamlining is fine, but we are considering expediting a process that can result in the use of eminent domain. The bar for seizing private property should be high, and lowering that bar is to the detriment of private landowners. Historically, when considering the use of eminent domain, the question has been: Is it in the public's interest? But this bill is forcing the question to shift to: Is it in the company's interest? That is not acceptable to me, and it certainly isn't acceptable to the general public. If we continue to expedite and rubber stamp these projects, consumers will be on the hook for unviable and, eventually, stranded assets. We need to look at our energy infrastructure based on holistic, regional needs that take into account how many projects are under consideration and how it would impact existing infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, having heard from my friend and colleague from West Virginia, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of West Virginia has 100,000 residents with asthma, including over 18,000 children. So it is weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act that would put these populations at risk. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I earlier stated, the State of Arizona has over 660,000 residents with asthma, including 175,000 children; and I just question putting their health at risk with this bill that moves us in the wrong direction. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a number of supporting documents. The first is a letter opposing the bill signed by the State Attorneys General of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and the Acting Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. April 26, 2017. Re Opposition to H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017. Hon. Greg Walden, Chairman, Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Walden and Representative Pallone: We write in opposition to H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017. This bill would not only delay implementation of more protective ozone air quality standards, but, more broadly, would undermine the mandate in the Clean Air Act (Act) that the national ambient air quality standards for ozone and other criteria pollutants be based on up-to-date scientific evidence and focus solely on protecting public health and welfare. As explained below, these measures would be a significant step backward in combatting the dangers of ozone and other criteria pollutants. Many of our states have struggled for decades with the pervasive problem of ozone pollution. The scientific evidence of harm to public health from ozone pollution is well established, as are the economic consequences. At certain concentration levels, ozone irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, wheezing, chest tightness and headaches. People exposed to elevated levels of ozone suffer from lung tissue damage, and aggravation of asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, and emphysema. Children, older adults, people with asthma or other lung diseases, and people who are active outdoors are particularly susceptible to the harmful health effects of ozone. Public health harms also exact an economic toll. For example, increased hospital admissions on bad ozone days increase health care costs borne by states and local governments. Ozone pollution also harms public welfare by damaging trees and reducing crop yields by interfering with the ability of plants to produce and store food and making them more susceptible to disease, insect pests, and other stressors. Ozone can also inhibit the ability of plants and trees to mitigate harms from climate change. To protect against these and other adverse impacts and ``to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population,'' the Act aims ``to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401(b)(1). To achieve this goal, the Act requires EPA to adopt primary standards for certain criteria pollutants, such as ozone, at a level that protects public health with an ``adequate margin of safety.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7409(b)(1). The Act also requires EPA to adopt secondary standards at a level that protects the public welfare from ``any known or anticipated adverse effects.'' 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7409(b)(2). The Act mandates that EPA review the air quality standards for each criteria pollutant every five years and revise the standards as advances in science warrant. As Justice Scalia explained for a unanimous Supreme Court, EPA's review must set the primary and secondary standards based on the scientific evidence, and may not consider implementation costs or other economic consequences. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 465 (2001). Rather, implementation decisions are a matter for states, which are empowered to evaluate the costs and co-benefits of potential implementation strategies and determine, in light of those costs and co-benefits, which strategies are most suitable for them. See Union Elec. Corp. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 266 (1976). To ensure that our residents and natural resources enjoy the benefits of the clean air that the statute demands, our offices have advocated in rulemakings and litigation that EPA set standards that protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety, as the Act requires. E.g., Mississippi v. EPA, 744 F.3d 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (State petitioners, including New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, successfully argued for remand of secondary ozone standards); American Farm Bureau Fed. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (State petitioners and amici, including New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, successfully argued for remand of primary fine particulate matter standards); Murray Energy v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 15-1385) (State amici., including California Air Resources Board, Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, filed a brief supporting the 2015 primary ozone standard against attempts to weaken it). The ozone rule promulgated by EPA in 2015 strengthened the primary standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb. 80 Fed. Reg. 65,292 (Oct. 26, 2015). This level was at the high end (i.e., less stringent) of the 65-70 ppb range that EPA proposed in 2014. EPA's independent science advisors, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, cautioned that this level may offer little margin of safety, particularly for sensitive subpopulations. Therefore, in comments on the proposal, several of our states urged EPA to adopt a primary standard lower than 70 ppb to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. However, even tightening the standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb will result in important public health benefits. For example, EPA conservatively estimated that meeting the 70 ppb standard nationally (not including California) will result in net annual public health benefits of up to $4.5 billion starting in 2025. These national benefits include preventing approximately: 316 to 660 premature deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in children; 160,000 missed school days; 28,000 missed work days; 630 asthma-related emergency room visits; and 340 cases of acute bronchitis in children. Under current law, states will develop and submit their own plans to attain the 2015 standard by 2020 or 2021. But H.R. 806 would delay this deadline until October 2026 and delay other similarly related deadlines, postponing even further the life-saving benefits of attaining clean air. The bill should be rejected on these grounds alone. In addition, H.R. 806 would undermine the protection of health and welfare from the dangers of all criteria air pollutants by weakening the national ambient air quality standards process for updating standards based on the most recent scientific evidence. Instead of requiring that standards be reviewed--and as necessary, revised--every five years based on the latest scientific evidence on the harms to public health and welfare from exposure to criteria pollutants, H.R. 806 would require updates only once a decade. The bill would also eliminate the Act's requirement that air quality standards be set solely based on adequate protection of public health and welfare. Specifically, the bill would authorize the EPA Administrator to also consider ``likely technological feasibility'' in establishing primary and secondary standards. This provision appears designed to allow EPA to weaken standards nationwide if it thinks a single area might be incapable of meeting them. But if that were ever the case, the Act already provides relief mechanisms for the affected area. In addition, the bill undermines the Act's existing protections by creating a loophole that allows EPA to treat hot or dry weather as an ``exceptional event'' excusing an area's nonattainment. Finally, the bill appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the Act's balance between federal and state authority. The bill directs EPA to cherry-pick hypothetical state implementation strategies and only evaluate their adverse side-effects, and, potentially, use that evaluation to weaken ambient air quality standards. But EPA cannot know at the time it sets standards what strategies states will choose, or how individual states will value their beneficial side- effects. Those considerations should remain separate from the standard-setting process. In summary, ozone pollution remains a serious and persistent problem for our nation, posing a particular risk to the health of children, the elderly and the sick, as well as individuals who spend time outdoors. Because H.R. 806 would represent a significant step backward in combatting ozone and other dangerous criteria pollutants, we urge you to oppose the bill. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. Sincerely, Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York, Lemuel Srolovic, Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau, Michael J. Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Protection Bureau. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, David A. Zonana, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Wiener, Deputy Attorney General. George Jepsen, Attorney General of Connecticut, Matthew I. Levine, Kirsten S.P. Rigney, Scott N. Koschwitz, Assistant Attorneys General, Office of the Attorney General. Matthew P. Denn, Attorney General of Delaware, Ralph K. Durstein, III, Valerie S. Edge, Deputy Attorneys General, Delaware Department of Justice. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Matthew J. Dunn, Gerald T. Karr, James P. Gignac, Assistant Attorneys General, Environmental Enforcement Division. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, Jacob Larson, Assistant Attorney General. Brian Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland, Roberta R. James, Assistant Attorney General. Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Christophe Courchesne, Chief, Carol Iancu, Assistant Attorneys General, Environmental Protection Division, Office of the Attorney General. Hector Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, Bill Grantham, Assistant Attorney General. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Paul Garrahan, Attorney-in-Charge, Natural Resources Section, Oregon Department of Justice. Josh Shapiro, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Office of the Attorney General. Patrick McDonnell, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Peter Kilmartin, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Gregory S. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General. Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General of Vermont, Nicholas F. Persampieri, Assistant Attorney General. Mark Herring, Attorney General of Virginia, John W. Daniel, II, Deputy Attorney General, Matthew L. Gooch, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington, Katharine G. Shirey, Assistant Attorney General. Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I think the insertion of discretion of the Administrator at the EPA as to the technological and economical availability, achievable qualities being inserted into this bill tells me--my interpretation is that the Administrator may not--the Administrator may not, may not--side with the residents--with the people of this country and their right to breathe clean air. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I want to express my strong opposition to H.R. 806, the Ozone Standards Implementation Act, which would undermine the Clean Air Act and the decades of progress that we have made to improve our Nation's public health and air quality. This bill delays implementation of the 2015 ozone standards until 2025, extends the review cycle for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards from 5 to 10 years, and authorizes the EPA administrator to consider technological feasibility when establishing or revising a NAAQS. Today, we will hear that removing health and environmental protections creates jobs, despite all the evidence that protecting public health and growing the economy are not mutually exclusive. Since its enactment, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants by roughly 70 percent, while the United States economy has more than tripled. We will hear today that our country has made enough progress, and we will hear claims that further progress will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, but this bill's supporters may not tell us that the American Lung Association's 2017 State of the Air report found that nearly 4 in 10 people in the United States live in counties that have unhealthful levels of either ozone or particle pollution. Delaying EPA's more protective health standards will only serve to delay these Americans' access to guaranteed clean air. I believe American ingenuity continues to be up to the task of developing and deploying technologies that will protect our citizens. History has shown again and again that meeting such basic health protective standards is achievable. More importantly, advancing these protections will make America more productive, more competitive, and will improve quality of life and drive down public health costs tied to asthma, heart disease, and even cancer. We may hear today that standards change too frequently and EPA should have more time to review and implement each standard. We will likely not hear that EPA has discretion on these matters and is only tasked with changing those standards if it will protect health. Every year, more studies are completed. With each new study, we gain an even better understanding of how ozone and other pollutants are harming Americans' health. It is critical that these standards reflect the latest available science. What we are not likely to hear today is questioning of the large and growing body of scientific and medical evidence that breathing air that contains ozone and other criteria pollutants can cause serious health effects. Unfortunately, this bill would cast aside that scientific evidence in favor of adding cost and technological feasibility considerations into the standard setting process. The proposed changes to the Clean Air Act will slow down, if not outright roll back, the progress we have made to clean our air. This would be a giant mistake. Healthier people means fewer sick days, fewer hospital visits, and fewer premature deaths, all of which lead us to a more productive society. According to a peer-reviewed 2011 EPA study, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented over 160,000 premature deaths, 130,000 cases of heart disease, 1.7 million asthma attacks, and a million more respiratory illnesses. Many of those health benefits have helped our most vulnerable populations, particularly our children. Let's do this for our children. Let's not make it worse. Let's improve our standards. That is why so many public health and medical organizations and professionals have vocally opposed this bill every step of the way. The Clean Air Act keeps kids in school, adults at work and on the job, and tens of thousands of Americans out of the emergency room each and every year. At a time when Republicans in Congress have been almost singularly focused on ramming through legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act and rip healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans, this bill adds insult to injury. Plain and simple, the bill before us today would undermine the Clean Air Act as a safeguard of our public health law, and I encourage each and every Member of the House to oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard from two colleagues from Texas, and I want to remind all of my colleagues, our colleagues, that the State of Texas has over 1.5 million residents with asthma, including some 430,000 children. Weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act would put their health at risk. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest that, when we move the timeframe for accomplishment of our progress by 8 years out into the future, we are stalling progress; and when we tamper with a review every 5 years and make it 10, we are denying progress. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, having just heard from the gentleman from Arizona, I want to remind my colleagues that the State of Arizona has over 660,000 residents with asthma, including some 175,000 children. Weakening vital protections in the Clean Air Act would put their health at risk. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, the second document I include in the Record is a letter from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, again, opposing the bill. Office of the Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. Re H.R. 806, Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017. Hon. John Shimkus, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Paul D. Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Honorable Chair Shimkus and Representative Tonko: The State of New York strongly opposes the ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017,'' which will substantially harm public health to the detriment of New Yorkers and residents of many other states. The proposed bill would restrict the efficacy of the Clean Air Act in a way that would delay implementation of critical health-based standards for protecting the public from harmful ground-level ozone and other dangerous air pollutants. The result of this proposed bill would be the significant postponement of health and environmental benefits for nearly a decade, inevitably resulting in increased illness and deaths from air pollution. Introduction The Clean Air Act (``Act'') addresses the critically important issue of protecting the health and welfare of all Americans from excessive levels of air pollution. It establishes a federal-state partnership under which EPA, informed by established science, sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at a level necessary to protect public health, and states develop and implement plans for achieving those standards. This collaborative process has significantly reduced pollutant concentrations to the great benefit of the public. Importantly, the process provided by the sections 109 and 110 of the Act recognizes that air pollution knows no boundaries and that air quality in many states, including New York, is impacted by emissions from sources located upwind. Section 109 of the Act ensures that implementation of the Act is guided by established science; it charges the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) with reviewing the latest ``state of the science'' relating to public and environmental health, and conveying its findings to the Administrator. Based on that information, the Administrator establishes the NAAQS at a level necessary to protect public health within a reasonable margin of safety. Under Section 110 of the Act, States then develop plans to achieve air quality that meets the standard in those areas that do not meet the standard, known as ``nonattainment'' areas. In its latest review, CASAC determined that the existing 2008 ozone NAAQS was insufficiently protective of public health, particularly for at-risk groups including children, older adults, people of all ages who have lung diseases such as asthma, and people who are active outdoors. Based on CASAC's scientific findings, EPA determined that implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS would help prevent a range of harmful health effects each year, including 320 to 660 premature deaths; 230,000 asthma attacks in children; 160,000 days when kids miss school; 28,000 missed work days; 630 asthma-related emergency room visits; and 340 cases of acute bronchitis in children. EPA has identified additional serious health threats from ozone including cardiovascular disease (e.g., heart attacks, strokes, heart disease, congestive heart failure); potential harm to the central nervous system; and potential reproductive and developmental harm. The health benefits from meeting the 2015 ozone NAAQS exceed the costs of controls by 2 to 4 times. Like many other states, New York strongly supported EPA's strengthening of the ozone NAAQS in 2015. This support comes even though New York faces a substantial burden of achieving ozone attainment in the New York City metropolitan area. This-burden, however, is outweighed by the need to address the serious public health impacts. In New York City, approximately 1 in 10 emergency room visits for asthma are attributable to ozone pollution. Rather than seek to delay its ozone attainment efforts, New York strives to bring the New York City metropolitan area into attainment as expeditiously as possible, in order to provide its residents with cleaner and more healthful air to breathe. Delaying public health benefits of the 2015 ozone NAAQS The proposed legislation would harm public health by delaying the implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (and its corresponding health benefits) for eight years and further postponing any future standard for several years beyond when they are necessary. Current law requires EPA to designate states under the 2015 ozone NAAQS according to their monitored air quality by October 2017, and states not meeting the standards would have a number of years to reach compliance proportional to the severity of their ozone problems. However, this legislation would defer action so that designations would not be made until October 2025, thus postponing even the beginning of planning efforts until after attainment would otherwise have been achieved under the current structure of the Act. For New Yorkers and other Americans, this would result in a substantial delay in their ability to breathe clean and healthful air. Even worse, this proposed bill compounds this public health harm by allowing the construction of new power plants and factories without considering their impact on a region's ability to achieve compliance with the NAAQS. Under current law, such new and modified facilities located in areas designated nonattainment are subject to a control technology review under the Clean Air Act's nonattainment new source review program, which requires a demonstration of control technology that would consider the ``lowest achievable emission rate,'' resulting in the most stringent emission limit for a certain source class. This bill would eliminate these new source reviews, which are critical for advancing a nonattainment area toward NAAQS compliance. Together, these aspects of the legislation will have even worse additional adverse impacts on states like New York that are victimized by upwind air pollution. First, this legislation will impair New York's relief from ozone transport from upwind locations. EPA modeling indicates that between 75% and 94% of the ozone in the New York City metropolitan area comes from sources outside of New York. Although New York will continue actions to reduce emission of ozone precursors, it cannot achieve healthful ozone levels without a substantial reduction in emissions from states located upwind, which are responsible for most of New York's ozone levels. Many of these states encompass areas that are currently monitoring as nonattainment, and these areas would have to achieve emission reductions under current law if designated nonattainment. Postponing a nonattainment designation for the New York City metropolitan area will have the unacceptable effect of postponing the ``good neighbor'' obligation of upwind areas to reduce their significant contribution to New York's nonattainment until sometime after the nonattainment designation. Moreover, postponing compliance with nonattainment New Source Review in areas that would otherwise be designated as nonattainment with the ozone NAAQS establishes an inequitable outcome for New York and other states that have already been designated nonattainment. Under this proposed bill, new industrial facilities in areas currently designated nonattainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS or in the Ozone Transport Region--including all of New York--will have to comply with nonattainment NSR requirements, yet facilities located in regions with comparable or worse air quality and much higher emissions will not have to do so for a decade or more. As such, states that would otherwise be designated nonattainment would gain an unfair advantage in attracting business development under this bill. Delaying public health benefits from reducing other criteria pollutants Aside from ozone, provisions of this proposed bill would affect future NAAQS reviews for all criteria pollutants, thus compounding negative public health impacts. For example, the bill would irresponsibly extend the NAAQS review time from five years to ten for all criteria pollutants. Retaining the five-year review schedule ensures that the Administrator reviews the relevant state of the science while it is timely and germane. Health science moves quickly; by the time one NAAQS revision is reaching completion, other pertinent clinical studies are being published. This proposed bill weakens public health protection by making cost and technological feasibility larger factors in the establishment and implementation of NAAQS. The Supreme Court has already upheld the notion that the consideration of costs has no place in the setting of a NAAQS (Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 2001). Instead, questions of technological and economic feasibility are considered at the stage of implementing the NAAQS. For example, the Act's nonattainment area classifications recognize that areas with more difficult ozone pollution problems require more time to comply. Unfortunately, Section 3(b) of the proposed bill would change the long-standing practice of how an Administrator determines the NAAQS by allowing him or her to analyze, as a secondary consideration, the likely technological feasibility of a revised NAAQS. Section 3(c) would expand CASAC's role to providing advice to the Administrator on adverse economic effects (among others) prior to the setting of the NAAQS. Taken together, these proposed revisions would have the effect that NAAQS would no longer be set at levels that are protective of public health and welfare. Finally, the proposed bill unnecessarily redefines ordinary expected conditions as ``exceptional events'' that need not be considered by a state in demonstrating attainment. The intent of the ``extraordinary event'' exception is to allow a state to discount NAAQS exceedances that result from one- time, unpredictable, and uncontrollable events such as wildfires. The proposal, however, would allow commonplace conditions such as stagnant air masses and ``meteorological event[s] involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation'' to be considered exceptional. In their ozone planning, states should anticipate these conditions, which are expected to occur each year and promote the formation of ozone when public health is at the greatest risk. We also disagree with the proposal to allow sources to avoid nonattainment new source review until release of the implementation guidance. EPA's delay in issuing guidance should not be an excuse to allow new sources in nonattainment areas to contribute to further air quality degradation. In addition, the bill's reduction of the time allotted for states to formulate and submit attainment plans from the current three years to one year reflects a misunderstanding of the laborious process for developing these plans. Conclusion The Clean Air Act is a bipartisan success story. Citizens across the country have benefited from the Act's clean air requirements over the last few decades. People can breathe easier due to the clean air standards that have resulted from rigorous reviews that are guided by the latest scientific evidence. Passage of this proposed bill would deprive the American people of those benefits, worsen air quality and harm public health substantially. Sincerely, Basil Seggos.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I want to remind my colleagues, having just heard from a Californian, that California has nearly 3 million residents with asthma, including 650,000 children. Why on Earth would we want to put them at further risk by going backward? I suggest that we keep that in mind as we vote on this measure. I heard the comment made about unachievable or unrealistic standards. Well, how is it that we have been making progress through the years? We have been growing jobs, and we have been cleaning the air. How is it that that was deemed unrealistic and unachievable? Mr. Chairman, I believe in the pioneer spirit of this great country. I believe in her intellect. I believe in the passion to do the right thing. And I think that will continue to motivate us as we listen to scientists who tell us about the standards that we ought to achieve. On our way to 75 parts per billion, we know that it is continued progress if we achieve 70; and if we listen to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, they will tell us that the air, for safety, with the safety factor, we should be closer to 60. So we have much more room for progress, and we have the technological wizardry to make that happen. Our children and generations unborn are counting on us. As has been stated many times over today, this is a move in a backward direction. We are concerned on this side of the aisle about H.R. 806. We need to know that the standards that are out there are achievable, that those standards drive technological improvement. We can grow the economy and clean the air. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, we have proven that they are inclusive. Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this effort of opposition to H.R. 806. It is, as many have called it, an effort that will continue to hold back progress. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. TONKO. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I include a letter signed by 121 environmental and other groups opposing the bill. March 21, 2017. Dear Senator/Representative, on behalf of our millions of members, the undersigned 121 organizations urge you to oppose the ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act'' (H.R. 806, S. 263). The innocuous-sounding name is misleading: this legislation would actually systematically weaken the Clean Air Act without a single improvement, undermine Americans' 46-year right to healthy air based on medical science, and delay life-saving health standards already years overdue. This bill's vision of ``Ozone Standards Implementation'' eliminates health benefits and the right to truly safe air that Americans enjoy under today's law. First, the legislation would delay for ten years the right to safer air quality, and even the simple right to know if the air is safe to breathe. Corporations applying for air pollution permits would be free to ignore new ground-level ozone (aka smog) health standards during these additional ten years. For the first time the largest sources of air pollution would be allowed to exceed health standards. The bill would also outright excuse the parts of the country suffering the worst smog pollution from having backup plans if they do not reduce pollution. The most polluted parts of the country should not stop doing everything they can to protect their citizens' health and environment by cleaning up smog pollution. This bill is not content to merely weaken and delay reductions in smog pollution. It also strikes at our core right to clean air based on health and medical science. The medically-based health standards that the law has been founded on for 46 years instead could become a political football weakened by polluter compliance costs. This could well result in communities being exposed to unhealthy levels of smog and soot and sulfur dioxide and even toxic lead pollution. The bill would also double the law's five-year review periods for recognizing the latest science and updating health standards, which are already frequently years late; this means in practice that unhealthy air would persist for longer than ten years. The legislation also weakens implementation of current clean air health standards. The bill expands exemptions for ``exceptional events'' that are not counted towards compliance with health standards for air quality, even when air pollution levels are unsafe. This will mean more unsafe air more often, with no responsibility to clean it up. Requirements meant to ensure progress toward reducing smog and soot pollution would shift from focusing on public health and achievability to economic costs. Despite the bland name ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act,'' this bill represents an extreme attack on the most fundamental safeguards and rights in the Clean Air Act. Since 1970, the Federal Clean Air Act has been organized around one governing principle--that the EPA must set health standards based on medical science for dangerous air pollution, including smog, soot and lead, that protect all Americans, with ``an adequate margin of safety'' for vulnerable populations like children, the elderly and asthmatics. This legislation eviscerates that principle and protection. We urge you to oppose H.R. 806 and S. 263, to protect our families and Americans' rights to clean air. Sincerely, 350KC; 350 Loudoun; Alaska Community Action on Toxics; Alton Area Cluster UCM (United Congregations of Metro-East); Brentwood House; California Latino Business Institute; Center for Biological Diversity; Central Valley Air Quality (CVAQ) Coalition; Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility; Chicago Physicians for Social Responsibility. Citizens for Clean Air; Clean Air Watch; Clean Water Action; Cleveland Environmental Action Network; Climate Action Alliance of the Valley; Connecticut League of Conservation Voters; Conservation Voters for Idaho; Conservation Voters of South Carolina; Dakota Resource Council; Earth Day Network; Earthjustice; Earthworks; Environment Iowa; Environment America. Environment Arizona; Environment California; Environment Colorado; Environment Connecticut; Environment Florida; Environment Georgia; Environment Illinois; Environment Maine; Environment Maryland; Environment Massachusetts; Environment Michigan; Environment Minnesota; Environment Missouri; Environment Montana; Environment Nevada; Environment New Hampshire; Environment New Jersey; Environment New Mexico; Environment North Carolina. Environment Ohio; Environment Oregon; Environment Rhode Island; Environment Texas; Environment Virginia; Environment Washington; Environmental Defense Action Fund; Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2); Environmental Law & Policy Center; Ethical Society of St. Louis; Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions; Florida Conservation Voters; Fort Collins Sustainability Group; Gasp; GreenLatinos. Health Care Without Harm; Iowa Interfaith Power & Light; Jean-Michel Cousteau's Ocean Futures Society; KyotoUSA; Labadie Environmental Organization (LEO); Latino Donor Collaborative; League of Conservation Voters; League of Women Voters; Maine Conservation Voters; Maryland League of Conservation Voters; Michigan League of Conservation Voters; Moms Clean Air Force; Montana Conservation Voters Education Fund. Montana Environmental Information Center; National Parks Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; NC League of Conservation Voters; Nevada Conservation League; New Mexico Environmental Law Center; New York League of Conservation Voters; Northern Plains Resource Council; OEC Action Fund; Ohio Organizing Collaborative, Communities United for Responsible Energy; Oregon League of Conservation Voters; Partnership for Policy Integrity; PennEnvironment. People Demanding Action, Tucson Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Maine Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, SF Bay Area Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tennessee Chapter; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Wisconsin Chapter; Powder River Basin Resource Council; Public Citizen; Public Citizen's Texas Office; RVA Interfaith Climate Justice Team; Safe Climate Campaign; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Sierra Club. Southern Environmental Law Center; Texas Campaign for the Environment; Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services; Texas League of Conservation Voters; The Environmental Justice Center at Chestnut Hills United Church; Trust for America's Health; Union of Concerned Scientists; Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment; Valley Watch; Virginia Organizing; Virginia Interfaith Power & Light; Voces Verdes; Voices for Progress; Washington Conservation Voters; WE ACT for Environmental Justice; Western Colorado Congress; Western Organization of Resource Councils; Wisconsin Environmental Health Network; Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters; Wisconsin Environment; Wyoming Outdoor Council.