John Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I am opposed to it in its current form.

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4889. I do want to say the Democrats continue to support the intention behind this bill. What happened to Kelsey Smith is clearly a tragedy that should not be allowed to happen again. Her family, who have advocated for these changes in the law, deserve our respect and are true heroes. But we cannot support this effort to force the bill through without including the commonsense consumer protections that resulted from strong bipartisan work in the last Congress. In the 113th Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce passed a version of the Kelsey Smith Act, a version that included specific protections for consumers' privacy closer in line with what is required under the Fourth Amendment. The legislation was a negotiated outcome that carefully balanced the needs of law enforcement on one hand with the rights of consumers and privacy concerns on the other hand. These protections would not have in any way slowed law enforcement's ability to find people in an emergency. They would simply have made sure that consumers are protected after a search takes place. This was a good deal. Unfortunately, the path taken in the current Congress was different. This year's bill, the one that we are debating now, disregards the hard work that went into finding a bipartisan agreement on the Kelsey Smith Act in the last Congress. During markups in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Democrats offered amendments that would modify H.R. 4889 back to what was agreed to in the last Congress. It would have kept the requirement that carriers provide the requested information to law enforcement, but the amendment would have provided a simple consumer safeguard. It would have required that law enforcement seek a court order within 48 hours after it makes an emergency request. So it would in no way have stood in the way of an emergency request; it would have just required law enforcement to seek that court order after the emergency request. Such modifications would address some of the concerns that have been raised regarding the potential abuse of H.R. 4889. It would not hamper law enforcement's ability to have quick access to lifesaving location data when they are presented with an emergency situation. We recognize that Chairman Walden was concerned that he could not support last year's deal, the version from last Congress, because it was not completely consistent with the law in his home State. That is why our proposal added a provision to protect existing State laws. Unfortunately, our efforts were rebuffed. We continue to stand ready to work together again, but I cannot support this bill in its current form without ensuring that additional protections are in place. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, let me say again that Democrats strongly support the intention behind this bill, but we cannot support it as it is currently drafted. We believe that we can do better. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4889. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration issued two critical executive orders directing Federal agencies to take responsibility for anticipating and responding to the effects of climate change. This amendment that is being proposed would block the Department of Defense from undertaking that effort. The amendment is ill-advised. It doesn't protect and prepare the American people for the impacts of climate change, and it won't help our military operate in a new security environment created by climate change. Climate change poses a significant security threat to the United States and the world at large. But don't take it from me. Our Nation's military leaders are saying we need to prepare for this new threat. The proponents of this amendment should listen to the military experts, not the special interest polluters that benefit from climate denial and the status quo. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I have been frustrated that the Republican majority has refused to hold serious hearings on the urgent problem of climate change, so Democrats on that committee went to Annapolis in my State to hold a climate change field forum. We heard testimony from Vice Admiral Ted Carter, the Superintendent of the Naval Academy. He told us that our future military leaders are learning about the science of climate change and the national security consequences that stem from it. He testified that because the Naval Academy sits on the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, they have several projects in motion to address sea level rise and the increased regularity of flooding. They are retrofitting older buildings and building new facilities that double as seawalls to protect the campus. Vice Admiral Carter also told harrowing stories of sailing aircraft carriers in between two massive hurricanes and equipment that short- circuited in waters with surface temperatures in excess of 100 degrees. Certainly my colleagues on the Republican side would not deny that these are consequential problems. Leaders like Admiral Carter cannot afford the luxury of ideological climate denial. He is taking the right steps to address climate change. We should support him and our other military leaders. Unfortunately, this amendment would do the opposite. For that reason, I urge its defeat.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Ranking Members Pallone and Green, as well as Chairmen Upton and Pitts, for working diligently with me to bring this bill to the floor today. This bipartisan bill, the Co-Prescribing to Reduce Overdoses Act, would create a demonstration project to encourage prescribing opioid overdose reversal drugs like naloxone to patients at an elevated risk of overdose, as well as to a close relative of such a patient. Why is this bill needed, Mr. Speaker? More than 100 Americans are dying every single day of preventable drug overdose, and overdose fatality is now the leading cause of accidental death in the Nation. In 2014, in my home State of Maryland, there were 887 opioid-related deaths. In Baltimore, 192 people died from heroin overdoses. In Anne Arundel County in 2014, there were 360 opioid overdoses, fatal and nonfatal; 49 of those were fatal. The problem is getting worse. From 2001 to 2013, there was a fivefold increase in the total number of deaths from heroin. This is an epidemic, but it is an epidemic that we can begin to stem if we take action. Naloxone is a drug that safely and effectively reverses both opioid and heroin-induced overdoses, if administered in time. It has been used by nonmedical personnel with only minimal training for over 15 years, and has been proven to lower overdose mortality by almost 50 percent. More people need access to this lifesaving medication. One part of that proactive approach is the idea of coprescribing naloxone to patients, or their caregivers, who are taking opioids and are at high risk of overdose. The Co-Prescribing to Reduce Overdoses Act would create a demonstration project for federally qualified health centers, opioid treatment centers, and other providers, to encourage coprescribing of naloxone and other opioid reversal drugs. This bill has been endorsed by the AMA, the American Society of Addiction Medicine; the American Academy of Family Physicians; and the Harm Reduction Coalition. There are five Republican cosponsors, I am pleased to say, proving that this is a bipartisan issue affecting virtually every part of the country. I am pleased as well to note that the bill received unanimous support in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I urge support of this bill today because I know that it will save lives and help begin to stem the tide of this terrible epidemic. I also support the other bills being debated this evening, and believe that these are all important initiatives to address the opioid crisis. However, it is just as critical that we provide adequate resources for all aspects of this epidemic to prevent addiction, to provide effective treatment, and to increase access to lifesaving opioid reversal drugs in order to truly bring an end to this epidemic. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important legislation.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, this coming Friday, April 22, is Earth Day. I had the pleasure this morning to be at Masonville Cove in Baltimore. This is the first national wildlife urban refuge that was established in the country. I was there with a class of young people-- high school students from Benjamin Franklin High School--who are learning science in the classroom but then are taking that knowledge outdoors and are connecting to nature. I am very excited that recently, when we passed the new reauthorization of the Federal Education Act, we embedded in it environmental education, which is now going to allow nonprofits, local school districts, and others to apply for competitive grant funding from the U.S. Department of Education to support environmental education and outdoor activities all across this country. The excitement these young people have today shows that our planet is in good hands.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the ranking member for yielding, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important topic of filling the Supreme Court vacancy. Madam Speaker, many of our colleagues in this Chamber carry a pocket Constitution--I have got one here myself--to remind ourselves of our duty to the country. Article II, section 2, the so-called Appointments Clause, is very clear. It says that the President shall have the power to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court. It says ``shall,'' Madam Speaker. It doesn't say ``may.'' It doesn't say ``might.'' It says ``shall.'' Yet, many of our Senate colleagues on the Republican side--the very same people who routinely will brandish the Constitution as they speak to justify their actions--are now ignoring the very plain text of the Constitution. Mitch McConnell suggested that the President should not even have put forward a nominee for this vacancy on the Supreme Court. In other words, he suggested the President shouldn't do the job that the Constitution clearly dictates he should do. Well, the President decided he was going to do his job. And all we are asking is that the Members of the Senate do their job. If you look at the nominee, Merrick Garland, it is hard to imagine a person better qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Nobody disputes the credentials of Judge Garland, an accomplished Federal prosecutor, a former senior official at the Department of Justice, the current chief judge of the ever-important D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and someone who throughout his career has been praised by both Democrats and Republicans alike. So what is the problem here? What is the holdup? Why isn't this vacancy being filled? Well, I think the Republicans in the Senate are just trying to run out the clock on President Obama's term. And it is not just that they are denying the President the process that he is entitled to. They are denying the country what the Constitution says the country deserves, which is a fully constituted Supreme Court with nine Justices serving and making important decisions. The Supreme Court of the United States cannot function as it is intended to unless it has nine members sitting on the court. It cannot find its way to new jurisprudence and new thinking unless it has got a fully constituted court. Many Americans look with expectation at this court and hope that certain kinds of decisions that we have seen over the last few years will maybe be revisited with some new thinking. For example, the Citizens United case has unleashed this torrent of outside money on our politics, which has left everyday people feeling locked out and left out of their own democracy. That wrong-headed ruling has further surrendered our political system to the wealthy and the well connected. The Shelby case gutted certain parts of the Voting Rights Act and enabled partisan operatives in State legislatures across the country to come up with new ways to limit access to the ballot box. These are decisions which eventually will be revisited. And we don't know how Merrick Garland would come down on those kinds of decisions. That is not the point. We are not prejudging where a rethinking of that kind of jurisprudence would land, but what we are saying is that it is important that you have a fully constituted court to examine these questions. And the American people have a right to expect that that will happen. When I came to this Chamber 10 years ago, I remember early on there was a very tough vote and I was going back and forth whether I should vote ``yes'' or I should vote ``no.'' And for a fleeting instant, I thought to myself: maybe I will just vote present. I talked to a couple of my colleagues and they said: The one reason you are here is to cast a vote. You can't just show up and be present. You have got to make a decision. And we are not asking Republican Members of the Senate to vote for Judge Garland. We are just asking them to take a vote. We are asking them to hold a hearing to meet the expectation of the Constitution. Have a hearing, put it to a vote, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't just show up and say: I am present. To do your job, you have got to show up and vote. That is what we do. We are legislators. We are not fixing potholes, we are not managing some brigade of soldiers. We are here to vote on legislation. We are here to vote on nominations. That is our job under the Constitution. So you can't not vote and pretend that you are showing up for work. So, Madam Speaker, I hope and encourage and beseech our colleagues on the Senate side to give Judge Garland a fair hearing, and then bring his nomination to a vote on the floor of the Senate. That is what the Constitution requires. That is what your job requires.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, how soon we forget. If the movie ``The Big Short'' made you mad--and I hope you have seen that movie--then what the Republican House leadership is proposing today should make you furious. After the financial crash in 2009, we acted. The Congress acted. We understood that we didn't have a wholistic picture of the risk across the financial markets before the crash. So we made a decision to create the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC, as they call it, to police these too-big-to-fail companies and to rein in the risks in our largest financial institutions. Now some of the biggest banks want the oversight to stop so they can bring back their risky, anything-goes casino banking practices, the exact practices that tanked the housing market and destroyed retirement savings for millions of Americans in the 2008 Wall Street collapse. This bill, H.R. 3340, pushed by Republicans and their big bank patrons, will neuter this important oversight body, blindfolding our government again and making another economic meltdown more likely. I feel as though every couple of weeks the Republicans here in the House are giving us another memory test. They bring a bill up that tests whether we remember that just 7 years ago our financial markets crashed because of risky behavior on Wall Street. I remember that that happened. Democrats remember that that happened. The American people remember that that happened. Apparently, the Republicans in Congress do not remember that. But we are going to keep passing this memory test and pushing back against these kinds of efforts to water down the Dodd-Frank reforms. Let me ask this, Mr. Speaker: How many of your constituents--I know none of mine--have asked to gut the Financial Stability Oversight Council, to strip critical oversight of our Nation's largest financial institutions, and to make another financial crash likely? Nobody is asking for that. Americans deserve better. They see day in and day out a Congress out of step with their priorities, and they want change. In fact, right now thousands of Americans are engaging in direct action on the Capitol Grounds asking for campaign finance reform and restoration of voting rights. Instead of voting once again to support the big banks and Wall Street, we should be listening to them and taking action to restore their voice in politics. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to push back against congressional amnesia and to oppose this bill.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentleman, Congressman Swalwell, of the Future Forum, for convening us around issues here in the Chamber and out in the country that are particularly important and critical for the next generation out there, and what we can do to bring their interests in, bring them into the political town square, if you will, and get the benefit of their voices. The gentleman is absolutely right to point to the challenge, the problem we have. Many young people, many Americans of all ages these days feel that their voice really isn't accounted for here in Washington. Their sense is that there is kind of an insider game being played, that big money and special interests hold particular sway in this place, and the voice of everyday Americans, average citizens, just doesn't have a place. That has led to cynicism, it has led to anger, it has led to frustration, and it has led to a lot of people deciding to exit the political arena. It doesn't mean they are not passionate about things. That is clearly the case. You see a lot of young people who are focused on climate change, on the economy, on jobs, on issues that are important to them. They have just kind of given up that maybe Washington and Congress are the places where important decisions and progress can be made on those issues. So the challenge for us is: How do we bring people back? How do we get them back into the conversation so we can benefit from what a pluralistic democratic society is all about, which is, you get people in there, you tussle around, you put your views out, you reach a compromise, and then you move forward? That is what progress is all about. I think one of the critical ways to address this is we have got to look at revamping the way we fund campaigns in this country. So the gentleman is right to call attention to that, and we have a lot of leadership here in the House that is focused on what we can do to kind of restore the voices of everyday Americans. I appreciate your citing the Government By the People Act, which is reform legislation that we have introduced in this Congress. We have almost 160 cosponsors, including, I think, everybody who is going to speak this evening as part of the Future Forum. The idea there is just to basically go build a different way of funding campaigns that puts everyday citizens back at the center, so they are the linchpin, they are the driver, where small donations can earn matching funds and help to power the campaign of Members of Congress and candidates out there who want to run and become part of this place. There will be a place for candidates to turn to support their campaigns other than to the special interests and the big money crowd. We can build a system like that that is viable, that puts everyday citizens at the center of it. And I think if we do that, young people and people, frankly, of all ages and stripes are going to decide they want to step back into the political space because they will feel appreciated again, like their voice matters. So I look forward to the discussion tonight, and I want to thank you for your work on the Future Forum and particularly calling attention tonight to this issue of money and politics, how we address it, and how we bring the voices of everyday citizens back into the mix into the people's House.

Mr. SARBANES. You can talk about the effect on the rules. You can just also talk about the effect on the enthusiasm for voting, period. If people are convinced that money calls the shots, then they are going to look at voting as just being asked to come out on election day and decide which of two people to send to Washington to work for somebody else. Look at the issue of access to the ballot box and protecting access to the ballot box. Last year I had the opportunity with many Members of Congress to go down to Selma with John Lewis and remember the foot soldiers from 50 years ago who fought for the right to vote. We talked about protecting access to the ballot box. But just as important is protecting the ballot box' opportunity to get to Washington without being hijacked along the way. Because that undermines the franchise, too. People bleed and sweat to get to the ballot box. You have to make sure that ballot box is preserved on its way to Washington. So on one side of the coin, you have the right to vote, which is sacrosanct in our country. On the other side of the coin, you have the right to have your vote mean something. That is where we have to address the undue influence that money has. Two other real quick points before I yield back. One is--and this is important, I think, to millennials, young people, and the next generation--this question about what we do with money in politics. It is not just about putting rules in place. Rules are important. You have got to have disclosure and transparency. You have to have non-coordination rules so the super-PACs can't talk to the candidates. You want to try and get a constitutional amendment to put limits on what the big money players can do. But rules are putting a referee on the field of the democracy to blow the whistle when the big money crowd gets out of hand. We need the rules, but we also need power. We need to figure out a way to get Americans out of the bleachers and onto the field of their own democracy. That is what small donor matching systems of public financing are all about. So it is about rules, but it is also about power. I think young people are leaving a lot of power on the table that they can take back to give themselves a voice in their democracy again, and they will be at the center of that kind of reform. So that is why it is so critical to push forward with all of these different measures. Then the last thing I just wanted to point out is one of the things that happens is young people want to run for office. They want to get into the game. They want to enter politics. They want to come into the political arena. But, unfortunately, there is something called the money primary or the green primary where, if you can't find a lot of people that can raise a lot of money for you, then you have no way to be viable as a candidate. So then you don't even put your hat into the ring. One of the things that will happen if we can create systems of small donor public financing across the country--and we are starting to see that in places like Seattle, Maine, Arizona, Connecticut, New York City, and so forth--is that people who before could never imagine running because they couldn't raise the money because there is a system that can lift them up, they will put their hat in the ring, they will run, they will compete, they will win, and they will serve. It will change the composition not just of Congress, but of State legislatures all across the country. That is the promise of small donor reform. Then we can bring young people in here. Then we can get the benefit of their wisdom not just as donors and not just as small donors, but as candidates and public servants.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 142, the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act, which would protect children from exposure to liquid nicotine. Liquid nicotine comes in a variety of flavors, like orange, grape, bubblegum, and cotton candy, which appeal to kids, and many of these liquid nicotine products are easily accessible to children for contact and consumption. At this time, there is no existing standard to protect against accidental poisoning. The threat of poisoning is not an imagined threat. About a year ago the first American victim--a 1-year-old--died from liquid nicotine poisoning. The number of calls to poison control centers about liquid nicotine continues to rise, and more than half of those reported exposures occurred in children who were under 6 years of age. This bill, as you heard, takes the commonsense step of directing the Consumer Product Safety Commission to limit the risks of child liquid nicotine poisoning by requiring special packaging for liquid nicotine containers. At the same time, it allows the Food and Drug Administration to continue with its rules on tobacco products, including the requirement for the childproof packaging of liquid nicotine. The FDA's authority to do so is clear, and I strongly encourage the Office of Management and Budget to finish its review of the tobacco rule so the rules can go into effect quickly. I hope and expect this will be as widely supported in the House as it was in the Senate. I salute Representative Brooks. I also thank Representative Elizabeth Esty for her important leadership on this critical issue and for working across the aisle, from the outset, to advance this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the 21st Century Power Grid Act. The bill would finance public-private partnerships to carry out innovative projects related to the modernization of the electric grid. Unfortunately, today the U.S. electric grid is still operating in the 20th Century. We must act now to improve grid reliability, flexibility, efficiency and security. There are literally a limitless number of ways in which the federal government can play a part to help modernize the electric grid. What we cannot afford is the status quo. Whether it's the application of digital technologies, advanced communications and control, distributed energy resources, resilience, cybersecurity, or providing customers with more choice in energy source, usage and rates; it's a completely new world for how we can generate, distribute and consume electricity. The federal government--in partnership with state and local governments, the private sector and ratepayers--must play a role in developing a strategy for the modernization of the electric grid and be an investor in the research, development and deployment of new advanced technologies. The 21st Century Power Grid Act would direct the Department of Energy to provide assistance, in the form of grants or cooperative agreements, to help advance the future grid. In order to be eligible to receive this assistance, utilities can partner with entities such as national labs, universities, or state and local governments to develop or demonstrate new grid technologies or energy management techniques. Most have heard the term ``smart grid,'' but I'm not sure many appreciate how truly revolutionary it could be if we were to achieve a smarter grid. ``Imagine a city in the middle of a deep freeze. The local power grid is struggling to keep up with everyone's heaters. What if the grid could automatically communicate with buildings in the area and negotiate reduced power consumption in exchange for a financial incentive? A large hotel that's only half-full due to the weather could dial back its thermostats, saving money on their bill and enabling the grid to divert that energy to homes and schools.'' This scenario was taken directly from the website of one of our national labs, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. PNNL and their partners recently completed a two year project that successfully demonstrated that this sort of communication and cooperative energy usage is possible. In your own home, imagine if you could throw dishes in the dishwasher or clothes in the dryer and then set the device to automatically start when you can pay the optimal rate for electricity. This is a win, win. Consumers pay less, and utilities can more efficiently manage peak loads. And the scenarios I've described don't even begin to scratch the surface of the potential for better integration of distributed energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal; energy storage capabilities; or other advances that only become conceivable when you do the type of basic research this country has always supported and excelled in. To not provide the Department of Energy with resources to invest in smart grid research and development would be akin to preventing the National Institutes of Health from doing medical cures research. The electric grid is an indispensable element of modern society and is critical to our national security, economy and the general well-being of the citizenry. I urge my colleagues to support the 21st Century Power Grid Act.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. William ``Brit'' Kirwan, who has been a leader in the State of Maryland and in higher education for more than 50 years. President John F. Kennedy once said, ``Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.'' Well, I can tell you that Dr. Kirwan's commitment to leadership and learning over these last 50 years have been indispensable not only to one another, but to higher education in Maryland and across the nation. Leading with integrity and purpose, Dr. Kirwan has earned the trust and respect of faculty, students and other leaders of higher education all over the country. Throughout his career, Dr. Kirwan has been committed to something he has described as ``constructive leadership''--which involves becoming a leader not through division and power, but through unity and service. He has embodied this philosophy at College Park, serving as chancellor of the University System of Maryland for more than 12 years, as president of the University of Maryland for 10 years and as a member of the University's faculty for 24 years. Dr. Kirwan has also taken his service and expertise beyond College Park, chairing the National Research Council Board of Higher Education and co-chairing the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. He also serves on the boards of more than five organizations--including the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Greater Baltimore Committee, Economic Alliance of Greater Baltimore and Maryland Business Roundtable for Education. And he belongs to more than four honorary and professional societies-- including Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America. These efforts have not gone unnoticed. Dr. Kirwan is the recipient of one of the nation's highest honors in higher education--the TIAA- CREF Theodore M. Hesburgh Award for Leadership Excellence. His invaluable leadership and his commitment to higher education in our state have also been recognized by several Maryland-based government, academic and business organizations. But perhaps the legacy of Dr. Kirwan's service over these last 50 years is best conveyed in his own words. In a speech delivered to Phi Beta Kappa inductees in 2004, Dr. Kirwan said, ``Our nation is in dire need of a new generation of enlightened leadership . . . highly educated, wise leaders who have respect for the individual, for inclusiveness, integrity and the common good.'' He continued, ``. . . our nation and world face a distressing array of enormous challenges, which--without enlightened leadership--will only worsen in the coming years.'' If the next generation embodies Dr. Kirwan's commitment to service and enlightened leadership, I am confident that it will successfully take on the world's complex challenges.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I too rise in support of S. 611, the Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act. This legislation will reauthorize funding to nonprofits that provide technical assistance to small public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Small and rural water systems face unique challenges. These systems have a smaller rate base, making it difficult to afford necessary upgrades and maintenance, and often lack the expertise to comply with national drinking water standards. S. 611 will prioritize funding to nonprofits that provide technical assistance to these small public water systems, giving them the needed expertise to tackle these challenges. This is a small but a very important step towards resolving our Nation's drinking water problems. As we know, aging infrastructure, problems with source water quality, and limited budgets are taking a toll on drinking water systems. The changing climate is creating further challenges. Public water systems are facing extreme conditions that are endangering our drinking water. Severe storms, algal blooms, extreme droughts, and saltwater intrusion are some of the examples of the conditions these systems face, all of which are affecting public water systems' ability to provide safe drinking water to our communities. Small public water systems rely on technical assistance from nonprofit organizations to navigate everything from routine maintenance to managing these complex situations to ensure that the water that they provide is safe for their consumers. S. 611 is one step of many that we must take to address our Nation's drinking water issues. Our Nation's water systems serve over 272 million people, and, according to EPA, they require infrastructure investments of $334 billion over the next 17 years. I look forward to continued bipartisan support for water-related legislation, including reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State Revolving Fund, so that we can address the myriad of issues that are facing our drinking water systems. I would like also to thank Environment and the Economy Subcommittee Ranking Member Tonko and Representative Harper for their work on this important issue. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this measure. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy. And I thank him for his work on this piece of legislation.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to support this important measure, S. 611. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 1737. The title of this legislation, the Reforming CFPB Indirect Auto Financing Guidance Act, is misleading. The legislation is not about ``reforming'' the guidance of the CFPB. It is about erasing and undermining CFPB's guidance altogether and suspending the Bureau's good work when it comes to monitoring and identifying discrimination in auto lending. Both the CFPB and the Department of Justice have found repeatedly that dealer discretion in determining the interest rates on auto loans leads to systemic discrimination against minority borrowers. Supporters have argued that this legislation would bring clarity and transparency to the auto loan market, but we must ask ourselves: Clarity and transparency for whom? It sure doesn't bring transparency for the American public when it comes to auto dealers who have been found to have been targeting minority communities with discretionary interest rate markups, increasing the carrying costs of car ownership for individuals who too often cannot afford the increased financial burden. Of course, not all auto dealers engage in such practices, and we must be careful in painting with a broad brush. In fact, I believe the CFPB's guidance is a useful tool to protect the reputation of auto dealers who do the right thing by their customers--many of whom are leaders in their communities--against the predatory practices of a select few who tarnish the industry. We should have clarity and transparency--clarity and transparency in how interest rates are determined so as to prevent discriminatory lending practices--but let the CFPB do its job, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Wall Street, the lenders, the mortgage companies, the big banks blew up our economy in 2009. They were exploiting a lot of consumers across the country. We set up the CFPB to protect financial consumers across the country. Let the CFPB do the job that it was given, which it is doing very well. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1737 and support the CFPB's ongoing work on behalf of American consumers.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on the Health Subcommittee and on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I rise today in strong support of the Improving Access to Emergency Psychiatric Care Act. I thank Representative Brooks of Indiana for her support of this measure and certainly welcome the fact that this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. What this bill would do is it would extend a demonstration project, as indicated, that ends the Federal prohibition on Medicaid matching payments to community psychiatric hospitals for emergency psychiatric cases. This demonstration project allows individuals with severe mental illness who are a threat to themselves or to others, including those with substance abuse disorders who have experienced overdoses, to get emergency inpatient treatment. The background of this is as follows: There has been a longstanding Medicaid provision, dating back to 1965, called the institutions for mental diseases, IMD, exclusion. Under that, the Federal Government is prohibited from providing Medicaid matching funds and reimbursement for the care of eligible individuals aged 21 to 64 if that care is provided in an inpatient facility that primarily treats people with mental health and substance abuse disorders and if that facility has more than 16 beds. As was indicated, the effect of this exclusion has been to decrease the number of inpatient psychiatric beds that are available for emergency services. It has also been cited by the Government Accountability Office as a factor in emergency department overcrowding, which Congresswoman Brooks just indicated. Community-based psychiatric hospitals could help relieve these backups and provide much-needed emergency psychiatric care, but these hospitals cannot receive Federal matching payments for these services. In 2010, Congress authorized a 3-year pilot called the Medicaid emergency psychiatric demonstration project, which expanded the number of emergency inpatient psychiatric beds available in communities by allowing Federal Medicaid matching payments to freestanding psychiatric hospitals for emergency psychiatric cases. Eleven States, including my home State of Maryland, are participating in this demonstration, and the preliminary data is very promising. Of the total number of Medicaid beneficiaries admitted to these community- based psychiatric hospitals, fully 84 percent had just one admission during the entire first year of the demonstration. The average length of stay was only 8.2 days, and in 88 percent of the admissions, the beneficiaries were discharged to their homes or to self-care. The demonstration project is set to end on December 31, 2015, but the final evaluation of the project is not expected to be completed until a year later. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this bill would build upon the success of the current demonstration project, which is providing timely and cost- effective care. It would also extend the current demonstration project by 1 year. It would ensure budget neutrality by certifying that the extension is not projected to result in an increase in net Medicaid program spending, and it would allow the Secretary of HHS to extend the demonstration project for an additional 3 years, provided that the requirements regarding Medicaid spending are met. The bill has already been passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. While I am a little bit disappointed that a very small change was made that is going to require it to go back to the Senate for reconsideration, I am confident that it will be supported there again with Senator Cardin's leadership. I urge support of this bipartisan effort to extend a demonstration project that allows individuals with severe mental illness and substance abuse disorders to get emergency inpatient treatment at community psychiatric hospitals.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the name of this bill is the Retail Investor Protection Act. If you didn't know better, you would think it was a bill designed to protect the retail investor. But, in fact, it does the opposite of that because it blocks the Department of Labor from putting in place commonsense rules that would make sure that retirement investment advisers handle their clients with care and with a fiduciary duty. The Department of Labor wants to update rules that are now 40 years old, and that, again, makes common sense. Here is what happens: A retiree wants to take his 401(k) plan and make a decision about where to invest it. The retirement adviser comes along and offers up that advice. Meanwhile, the retiree does not realize that that person may be getting a commission from the very funds to which that retiree is being directed. That is a conflict of interest, pure and simple. If you asked the average retiree, ``Do you think we need a rule that would protect retirees and other investors from this kind of conflict of interest, that would put some kind of fiduciary duty in place so the retirement investor is acting in the interest of the client,'' if you said, ``Do you think we need a rule,'' the average retiree would ask, ``Do you mean we don't already have that rule in place?'' He wouldn't believe it. He wouldn't believe this conflict of interest is structurally built into the system and is resulting in billions of dollars being taken from workers' retirement savings every single year. So why is the Congress taking this up? Why are we trying to block the DOL? I fear that what is happening is Congress is getting pushed around again by Wall Street and by wealthy special interests. We heard a lot about crony capitalism when talking about the last bill. That is what is going on here. There is a letter in the Record from the Koch Brothers and their gang, Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks. They are in here trying to block the Department of Labor's bill. So Big Money is cascading into Washington. It is affecting the way we make policy. It is going to keep coming. The fix is in. I hope my colleagues will come to the floor today and vote against this, but I am not optimistic.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Samuel Shapiro & Company, Inc., a Customs brokerage and freight forwarding firm in Baltimore, on 100 years of service to the international trade community. In 1915, Samuel Shapiro, a newly licensed Customs House broker, opened a one-room office at 29 S Gay Street with a $5 roll top desk and two employees. He built his company on a foundation of integrity, respect and the ability to create change. During World War I, Samuel's young firm managed the U.S. government's grain exports to war-torn European countries out of the Port of Baltimore. As business expanded internationally, Shapiro & Co. earned a reputation as the most trustworthy shipping firm in Baltimore. Samuel became an influential leader in the expansion of the Port and advocated for an autonomous Maryland Port Authority. Samuel's son, Sigmund, strengthened the company's relationship with government officials at the local, state and national level, becoming a voice for the industry on regulation. More than a family business, Shapiro & Co. is a family that cares for its own and its community. Samuel began the tradition of philanthropy early. At the close of his first full year of business, and having made a modest profit of $50, he gave 20% to the American Jewish Relief Fund. That spirit of generosity has continued with the deep community involvement of Sig and Barbara Shapiro and the next generation leadership of Samuel's granddaughter, Marjorie. Shapiro & Co. sponsors a logistics class at the University of Baltimore Business School, consults with nonprofit organizations pro bono, matches its employees' charitable contributions and helps its employees' children pay for college. With annual retreats and crab feasts, birthday celebrations, and a company cookbook, the people at Shapiro & Co. enjoy the time they spend together. It is little wonder that Shapiro is consistently ranked one of the top places to work in Baltimore. Over the last century, Shapiro & Co. has managed not only to adapt to new challenges but to flourish. Its offices now reach from New York to Georgia, but Shapiro continues to value the same old-fashioned customer service established at Sam's roll-top desk in 1915. I thank Shapiro & Co. for 100 years of dedication to its customers, care for its employees, and leadership in its community, and I look forward to the 100 years to come.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this legislation, H.R. 1190, for reasons that I will detail in a moment. At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)