Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called Right to Try Act. This ideologically driven legislation is trying to solve a problem that simply doesn't exist. Every single Member of this body supports allowing terminally ill individuals to seek access to experimental treatments that could be potentially lifesaving. However, we have to do so in a structured way that won't undermine the role of the FDA in guaranteeing that the medications we all use are safe and are effective. I believe the FDA's current expanded access program meets that test by ensuring proper informed consent and adverse event reporting and establishes the appropriate safeguards around access to experimental drugs. The legislation before us would take the FDA out of the process completely and would allow a black market of snake oil salesmen to emerge, with unscrupulous companies selling untested drugs to a broad array of individuals, including those with manageable chronic conditions like diabetes. Make no mistake about it: this legislation offers false hope to seriously ill individuals and will put patients at risk.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago this June, President Trump announced that it was Infrastructure Week. He declared it again last August, and then again in February, when he rolled out a proposal that was about 15 percent the size of what he promised. And this week, well, you won't be surprised that it is Infrastructure Week again. In a year and a half of the Trump Presidency, we have had four Infrastructure Weeks, but no real infrastructure bill, no solution, and no problem solving. Many of our roads, bridges, pipes, electric lines, railroads, ports and airports need our help. They are crumbling, structurally unsound, or simply out of date. Instead of being bold and proposing a plan like President Eisenhower did, our current President proposed selling off these critical public systems to the highest bidder and sticking local taxpayers with the rest of the bill. That is a bad deal. Democrats have A Better Deal to rebuild America by putting our money where our mouth is, investing $1 trillion in helping to jump-start 16 million middle class construction jobs. That is a better deal. That is what America deserves.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I speak, this evening, joining with some members of SEEK. You heard earlier from the gentlewoman from Maine, who spoke of the SNAP cuts, the nutrition cuts. Congresswoman Pingree is absolutely right: It is a big portion of the farm bill. But, beyond that, I am horrified with this current farm bill that proposes many harmful provisions that would completely disregard some very bedrock environmental laws. As one of the cochairs of SEEK, which aims for sustainable outcomes for energy and environment policy, you must speak to this bill, because it is so dreadful as it relates to our environmental and energy policy. This bill weakens environmental and public health protections against pesticides, many of which were established to protect the health of our children. Those protections that would be destroyed by this farm bill include allowing companies to spray pesticides into our waterways without even obtaining a Clean Water Act permit, endangering sources of drinking water and places where we swim and where we fish; preempts local governments from taking steps to protect their communities from pesticides; and weakens protections for endangered species by eliminating the requirement to consult with Federal wildlife experts. These pesticides can elevate the risk of cancer and other chronic diseases. Removal of Clean Water Act protections, and the preemption of local efforts to protect communities, puts our public health at great risk. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified the pesticide glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. The United States Geological Survey routinely finds glyphosate in our United States waterways. EPA's scientific review found that the pesticide chlorpyrifos in water and on food is unsafe for children and increases the risk of learning disabilities. Prenatal exposures to this chemical are associated with reduced IQ and delayed motor development. Whenever chlorpyrifos is sprayed, it can cause immediate and long-term health harms to kids, to farmers, to farmworkers, and others who are exposed. These provisions also put our wildlife at risk. Decades ago, bald eagles and peregrine falcons were brought to the brink of extinction by the pesticide DDT. To address such issues, the EPA is required, under the Endangered Species Act, to consult with the expert Federal wildlife agencies when approving chemicals that can harm endangered species. This bill eliminates that requirement, threatening endangered wildlife and hindering recovery of imperiled species. Our farm bill is about supporting farmers, strengthening communities, and providing food for America. Rolling back public health and wildlife protections has no place in this bill. The cuts of $23-plus billion in SNAP benefits, kicking an estimated 1 million households off of the program and affects 265,000 children out of free school meals is torturous in its own right. Someone, today, earlier said: When I was a kid, my money for food programs, for lunch programs was taken by the school. Now Congress is taking the money for school lunch programs away from the kids. Cuts of $800 million in conservation funding are devastating to our environment, and the cutting of vital funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency in our rural communities, which will eliminate the Rural Energy for America Program, is going to be a great consequence of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I was compelled to come to the floor and join with my colleagues as a member of SEEK that is looking for sustainable energy and environment outcomes to speak against this bill, which is going to hurt the progress over the last decades that speaks to agriculture in America, farming in America, and the quality of life for children and families across this great land.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), our outstanding ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Kihuen).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3053, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act. First, let me recognize the hard work done by Mr. Shimkus on this bill. He has been tireless in this effort. And to his and his staff's credit, he has worked with us to make what I believe are a number of improvements to the given bill. Regardless of your position on nuclear energy, we have to acknowledge the reality that tens of thousands of tons of waste already exist. This is a problem for over 120 host communities across our country, and it will not be solved by continuing to ignore it. But even if you do not represent one of those communities, all of our constituents are paying for this waste. Decades ago, the Federal Government entered into agreements to remove it from nuclear plants. Deadlines have been missed, and now all taxpayers have a legal liability of over $34 billion, which is being paid from the Treasury's Judgment Fund. In my view, the most important thing this bill does is set up a path forward on interim storage, which will allow spent nuclear fuel to be stored in a consolidated location on a temporary basis while a permanent repository is pursued. The bill includes language based upon a proposal developed by our colleague, Doris Matsui, to allow the Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement to establish an interim storage pilot program, which can move forward directly after enactment. Consolidating waste at a small number of sites instead of 121 communities across our country will help ensure waste is managed more safely and securely while allowing those 121 sites to begin to be redeveloped for other purposes. I know a number of our colleagues have concerns with this bill, and I understand their position. And many Members that support this bill, including myself, have not passed judgment on the merits or final disposition of the Yucca Mountain project. That is why Members of the minority demanded a number of troubling Nevada-related provisions be removed from the bill during the committee process. This bill will not rubber-stamp the Yucca permitting application. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will still need to adjudicate the many remaining issues with the application, and it will need appropriations in order to do so. I know we will hear about the challenges of transporting spent fuel to a final repository, but the reality is nuclear material is already moved around our country today without incident due to strict safety requirements. The only alternative to not moving this waste is keeping it spread out in 121 locations for tens of thousands of years. Overall, this bill is a step in the right direction toward beginning to address our Nation's very difficult nuclear waste issues, which is why it was reported out of committee by a vote of 49-4. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, it is very rare that we consider a perfect bill. This is not the bill Mr. Pallone or I would have written on our own, and I do not think it is a bill Mr. Shimkus would have wanted on his own either, but that is the nature of compromise. I again want to thank Mr. Shimkus and his staff for their willingness to work with us to address a number of our concerns with the initial bill. And I want to acknowledge the hard work done by Tuley Wright, Rick Kessler, and other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee minority staff, who worked so diligently on this legislation. I truly understand the concerns raised by my colleagues in opposition, especially those from the Nevada delegation, and I sympathize with many of their arguments, but the reality is our Nation has a substantial amount of nuclear waste, and we as a Nation need a plan to address it. We are dealing with the constraints of legislation passed some 30 years ago, and within those constraints, I believe this bill is a step in the right direction to address our Nation's nuclear waste issues. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I know that this takes the issue and the response of this bill and makes it even stronger. With that in mind, I thank my colleague and those with whom he worked on this amendment for their input, and for, again, an amendment that makes the response so much stronger. With that, I plan to support the amendment.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding, and I stand in support of the amendment. I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from New York for their hard work on the amendment and for the sensitivity shown the people in host communities for our nuclear facilities across our country. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment and encourage our colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, prescription drug prices are skyrocketing. Every day, constituents tell me about outrageous prices they are forced to pay for medications just to stay healthy. Janice from Albany, in my district, wrote me last year about a drug she takes to manage her mental illness. Her monthly cost went from $9 to $342. Irene from Hagaman has said her monthly prescriptions have jumped from $35 to $250. Regina from Rexford saw the monthly cost of her rheumatoid arthritis medicine jump from $2,800 to $3,700 in just one year. That is a bad deal. Every Member of this body has heard these stories. Despite these cries for help from our constituents, Congress has failed to act. President Trump made lowering prescription drug prices a centerpiece of his campaign. What has he done about it? America leads the world in developing new and innovative lifesaving cures, something we should be proud to continue; but many of our own citizens don't have real access to those innovative treatments. That is a bad deal. Drug pricing is complex, but in the richest Nation on Earth, no one should have to go bankrupt to obtain lifesaving medicine. We have to do better. We need greater transparency, more aggressive negotiation, no more pay- for-delay on generic drugs, and more. Democrats have a better deal to offer the American people.