Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes subsection (b) of section 3, which would allow the EPA to consider technological feasibility when determining what level of pollution is safe. Health-based standards are the cornerstone of the Clean Air Act-- health-based. The EPA sets NAAQS at levels sufficient to protect the public health, essentially, the level of ambient air pollution that is safe to breathe. While costs are not considered in establishing these standards, costs can be--and are considered--in developing plans to achieve the necessary pollution reductions to meet the standards. Unfortunately, H.R. 806, as currently drafted, would change the longstanding criteria for establishing an air quality standard from one that is based solely on protecting public health to one that includes a consideration of the technological feasibility. This issue has been long debated and settled by Congress. Since passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, including the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Congress has excluded technological feasibility considerations from standard setting to ensure that public health--and public health alone--would determine the standards for air quality. In 1970, on the passage of the Clean Air Act, Senator Ed Muskie from Maine said: ``The first responsibility of Congress is not the making of technological or economic judgments--or even to be limited by what is or appears to be technologically or economically infeasible. Our responsibility is to establish what the public interest requires to protect the health of persons. This may mean that people and industries will be asked to do what seems to be impossible at present time. But if health is to be protected, these challenges must be met.'' For approaching five decades, that has been the guiding tenet of the Clean Air Act: what is in the betterment of public health. Guided by this principle, our Nation has experienced a 70 percent reduction in key air pollutants while tripling the size of the economy. I believe that a great deal of this success can be credited to American innovation. Despite assertions that achieving clean air was not feasible, American ingenuity has consistently risen to the challenge and made our country the leader in both clean air and clean air technology. Unquestionably, these standards have driven innovation, creating a thriving domestic pollution control industry. So I ask my colleagues who are in favor of this measure: What is it about a can-do attitude that you don't get? Why is it that you have a lack of trust in the power of American ingenuity? Had these standards not been ambitious and focused solely on public health, we may still be relying upon the technology from the 1970s and breathing the poor air quality from that era along with it. Available technologies cannot and should not determine what we can have in terms of clean air. Let's have the scientific and medical experts guide us, and I have confidence that our engineers and innovators will find that way. The history of those protections that we enjoy has been to set ambitious, but achievable, goals. We have achieved those goals, and we have much cleaner air to show for it. Let's not roll back this process. Mr. Chair, 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. 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. 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. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, The Senate is introducing yet another version of TrumpCare today. I rise to express my grave concern with the most harmful aspects of this mean and merciless bill. TrumpCare still includes billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, a critical source of healthcare for 1.75 million of America's veterans, two-thirds of U.S. nursing home residents, and one in five Americans. The latest Senate TrumpCare bill cuts Medicaid by as much as a third. Every version of TrumpCare we have seen would result in more than 20 million fewer Americans covered over the next 10 years. There is still no sign of a TrumpCare bill that would not break President's Trump's healthcare promises to the American people. The President promised ``insurance for everybody.'' He said: ``Everybody's going to be taken care of.'' Every version of TrumpCare would break that promise, big league. The President promised that Medicaid would not be cut under his healthcare plan. No version of TrumpCare has been proposed that even comes close to keeping that promise. President Trump promised the American people a healthcare plan that would ``lower premiums'' with ``much lower deductibles.'' It is time for Americans to get a real plan and not be left with broken promises.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on World Refugee Day, to share some facts on the United States Refugee Resettlement Program. America's Refugee Resettlement Program is a small but powerful humanitarian expression of American values and founding principles. And just as important, it makes us safer. Refugees go through vetting that is already extreme. If there is any doubt about a refugee's identity, he or she is not admitted. The process is so rigorous, there hasn't been a single fatal terrorist attack carried out by a refugee in the United States since the Refugee Act became law in 1980. Americans across our great country support resettlement. America's faith communities are leading the call for America to stand by her principles and shelter the fleeing victims of our enemies, including the Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany in my own 20th District of New York. That is because it speaks directly to American values of strength, inclusiveness, and compassion. New Yorkers have played a vital role in the resettlement program, and refugees are positively contributing to communities across New York State and beyond. The United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants' Albany field office has helped resettle refugees from Afghanistan, from Burma, Iraq, Ukraine, and the Congo, just to name a few. Some of these refugees are single mothers seeking a better life for themselves and their children; others are families fleeing war and persecution. We have the strength, the means, and the capacity to welcome these refugees with open arms. Let us stand with these huddled masses and remain a beacon of freedom around the world.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Wedding Anniversary of James and Madeline Petraske of Niskayuna, New York. James and Madeline met when James--who was dating a friend of Madeline's--offered her a ride home from her job at the National Baseball Manufacturing Company in Schenectady, New York. The couple married two years later on Flag Day, June 14, 1942. In 1944, as World War II raged on around the world, James and Madeline answered the call to serve. James left his job at General Electric to serve our country overseas. Madeline joined the war effort here at home as a nurse aid for the Red Cross. The two wrote to each other regularly until James returned home on June 25, 1946. James returned to his job at General Electric where he worked until he retired as a Manager of Shop Operations in 1961. In addition to their service to our country, James and Madeline volunteered with Meals On Wheels throughout their lives, stopping only after Madeline and James had turned 89 and 90, respectively. Madeline, at the age of 97, continues to volunteer for the Disabled American Veterans. James and Madeline are the proud parents of three children, five grandchildren, eleven great grandchildren and one great great grandchild. Each night before they go to sleep, James tells Madeline she is the best thing that ever happened to him. Congratulations to James and Madeline on their 75th Wedding Anniversary. We thank them for their lifetimes of service to their community and country.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep disappointment that President Trump intends to pull the United States out of the historic Paris climate agreement. This agreement is a powerful symbol of America's strength and global leadership. It promised a bright future for our Nation and the world powered by clean energy. America was poised to lead that clean energy revolution. Instead, the world is now making plans to move ahead without us. Jobs will be created without us. New industries will be born and new innovative technologies manufactured without us. If we stick with this President's decision, America will be on the outside looking in. I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am still in, and so are more than 1,000 of America's most forward-thinking cities, States, universities, and businesses, including the cities of Albany, Schenectady, and Saratoga Springs, Union and Skidmore Colleges, and SUNY Albany. So are millions of our fellow Americans and communities in every single congressional district across our great Nation. Together, we will embrace the climate economy, even if our President does not. President Trump's decision is a scar on America's image, but the American people will continue to demand leadership on reducing carbon pollution. Our children and our grandchildren are counting on us. Let's not fail them.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call urgent attention to America's drinking water infrastructure. Every day, more than 700 water mains break in cities, towns, and villages across our great country. Every day, 7 billion gallons of clean drinking water are lost due to leaks and breaks in our water infrastructure. That is treated water and our tax dollars down the drain. With as many as 10 million lead service lines in use today and dozens of new unregulated contaminants, the threat to public health goes far beyond Flint, Michigan, and Hoosick Falls, New York. Our Federal Government has a duty to protect the people of this country. We must act decisively to address this growing challenge. We maintain roads and bridges and ports and railways and so much more, but our investment in our water systems has not kept up, and now these systems are failing. Many State and local governments can't keep up. They need our help. This job needs to get done now, this year, in this budget. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to join me in supporting H.R. 1071, the AQUA Act. Let's respond to these great Nation's drinking water challenges with strength, compassion, and passion.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call our President's attention to the working families both in New York's capital region and across our great country who are hurting from his broken promises during his first 100 days in office. President Trump promised during the campaign that our working families would never be forgotten again. He has forgotten to keep that promise. This President promised to get lobbyists and special interests out of our government. Then he filled his Cabinet with former lobbyists, Wall Street and oil company executives, and other billionaires. Now reports are coming out that numerous members of his administration were exempted from his widely publicized 5-year lobbying ban; therefore, it is no surprise that his policies, again and again, put corporate interests ahead of America's middle class and working families. President Trump promised to punish companies that outsourced American jobs. Instead, he has continued to award lucrative government contracts to these outsourcing companies, rewarding them for bad behavior and doing nothing to hold other bad actors accountable. As a candidate, Donald Trump called NAFTA the worst trade deal ever approved in our country. He promised to hold China accountable for its bad behavior on trade. Mexico and Canada called his bluff this week on NAFTA. Instead of accountability, President Trump has offered China sweetheart trade benefits to get them to keep promises they had already made in dealing with North Korea. We know the difference between alternative facts and real results. We all do.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 26th, I was unavoidably detained and I missed roll call votes 224 and 225. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on roll call vote 224. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on roll call vote 225.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding. Thank you, Representative Langevin, for leading us in this hour, and also for your great leadership on behalf of the arts and humanities. I am very pleased to join my colleagues in taking this time to speak about the critical importance of the National Endowment for the Arts, NEA, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH. Any great civil society will grow even stronger by embracing the arts and humanities, and certainly America, when she embraces the arts and the humanities, grows to the greatest potential; so the greatness of America is reflected by that interest and that investment. At a time when some are arguing that we must cut our way to success, I would remind them that investments in the arts and in humanities are investments in our workforce and in our economy. I fully support funding for these programs. The National Endowment for the Arts provides a foundation for America's artistic excellence, her creativity, and innovation that benefits individuals, communities, and our industries. As NEA Chair Jane Chu once said: ``Although many may not realize it, the arts actively intersect with areas such as the economy, human development, and community vitality.'' The NEA, as a strong sponsor of the arts and artists, is an integral source of strength at these intersections, challenging students to turn imaginative ideas into brilliant solutions for generations to come. Art in our communities, and especially in our schools, is indeed vital. It is one of the most important ways that we celebrate our unique regional heritage and expand our own horizons of creativity and innovation. In the capital region of New York, the area that I am so proud to represent, we value the arts. So much of our artistic achievement would not be possible without the National Endowment for the Arts. For many years, the Albany Symphony Orchestra has received NEA grants in support of the American Music Festival. The Arts Center of the Capital Region has received NEA grants for exhibitions, workshops, and master classes. Yaddo has been the recipient of many NEA grants to support residencies for collaborative teams. Fence magazine uses NEA grants for publication of books of poetry and podcasts. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute was just awarded an NEA grant for residencies to create works investigating the intersection of art, media, technology, and, yes, science. Without the NEA, these programs would not be there to enrich our communities and our lives. National Endowment for the Humanities awards also support research and innovation, strengthen critical thinking and writing skills, as well as strengthen humanities education in all institutions of learning. Supporting the growth of the humanities in our communities is just as essential. The National Endowment for the Humanities has contributed in many ways to the capital region, which has a very rich history and heritage worthy of preservation, promotion, and celebration. Many of our institutes of higher education have benefited from these grants, including RPI, Skidmore, Union College, and SUNY Albany, to name a few. Some of the projects that have been funded by NEH include the Underground Railroad History Project of the Capital Region, which explores the complex relationship between the Underground Railroad, the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction in our region, as well as the influence of these events on our contemporary society. Investments in the humanities also drive us to be better citizens. NEH has supported the League of Women Voters of New York State Education Foundation, which is working toward the celebration of women's right to vote and the 100th anniversary of the League of Women Voters in New York State to celebrate the upcoming events commemorating the women's suffrage centennial. Grant recipients include the Girl Scouts, the Troy Boys and Girls Club, libraries, museums, high schools, and elementary schools. Our history reminds us of the pride that comes with developing community and neighborhood, investments that those who came before us made in growing families, developing households, building neighborhoods in powerful and meaningful ways. This conversation is also closely linked to two other important fields that are intertwined with the arts and humanities. First, I am a longtime supporter of America's heritage areas, special places that have played important roles in shaping our Nation. They tell the stories of people and communities, the pioneer spirit of which laid the foundations of our society. Heritage areas provide enormous economic benefits, and I greatly appreciate the work that the Erie Canalway and Hudson Valley heritage areas have done for upstate New York. As the co-chair of the Congressional National Heritage Area Caucus, I continue to be impressed by how the entire National Heritage Areas program operates on a very small budget. These cost-effective programs create jobs and grow our local economies. In fact, each Federal dollar invested in this program leverages more than $5 in non-Federal funds. That is exactly the kind of smart investing we need to see more of. By the way, thank you to the 77 Members who joined me in supporting funding for heritage areas. I am also supporting funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services because museums are a vital part of our communities and educational infrastructure. These museums collectively employ 400,000 Americans and have an impact of $20 billion in their communities. During my time in Congress, I have been a steadfast advocate for our Nation's museums, and I have urged my colleagues to robustly fund the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the primary agency that supports our Nation's 33,000 museums. It is highly accountable, and its great competitive, peer-reviewed grants programs serve all States. This year, we had 166 Members signing on to that letter. So it is very obvious, NEH, NEA, IMLS, and National Heritage Areas are fundamental investments in our communities. They make life richer, more meaningful; they inspire us; they challenge us. They need to be funded. Let's move forward with the critical funding they require and deserve.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate New York State Yellow Ribbon Day. On April 9th, the State of New York will observe Yellow Ribbon Day to honor current and former members of the United States Armed Forces. Yellow Ribbon Day has occurred on April 9th each year since 2006 following unanimous support for resolutions by the New York State Legislature, and Proclamations by New York's governors. New York State Yellow Ribbon Day, which was originally held at the Saratoga-Wilton Elks, and now takes place at the Halfmoon Town Hall, truly represents the spirit of the New York's 20th Congressional District and its commitment to supporting and recognizing our service men and women. Yellow Ribbon Day is championed each year by Carol Hotaling, a resident of New York's 20th Congressional District, who began making yellow ribbons to donate to the family members of troops deployed during Operation Desert Storm. Ms. Hotaling stands as a beacon of goodwill and an outstanding member of our community by virtue of her dedication to creating a meaningful occasion to honor our troops. Ms. Hotaling chose the date of April 9 in honor of Matt Maupin, a U.S. Army Staff Sergeant who was captured while serving in Iraq on that date in 2004. Staff Sergeant Maupin was the first U.S. military service member who went Missing-In-Action during Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is an honor and privilege to recognize our troops on this solemn occasion, and always, for their example of honor, sacrifice, strength, sense of duty, and leadership. On behalf of New York's 20th Congressional District, I offer my heartfelt gratitude for their service in defense of our freedom, security, and way of life.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, during yesterday evening's vote series, I was present on the House floor. However, my vote was not recorded on rollcall No. 202, due to a technical malfunction. Had I been recorded, I would have voted ``no'' on S.J. Res. 34.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1430, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act. I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered. This bill pretends to improve scientific integrity and transparency while, in reality, they would stop the EPA from doing its critical job, its critical mission of protecting the American people. Many credible organizations have opposed the HONEST Act, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, the League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Action Fund. Two others that I include in the Record, the copies that I hold in my hand, in opposition, have been received from the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, and the other from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Washington, DC, March 27, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, which represents our nation's leading ocean research and technology institutions (from academia, industry, and aquaria), I am writing to express concern regarding the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017 (H.R. 1430). Sound science must underpin the rulemaking process at all our nation's federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency included. I am concerned about the practical implications of this bill and what it means, not only for the rulemaking process, but for the health, security, and prosperity of our nation and its citizens. While I ardently support efforts to ensure the continued use of sound science, I urge you and your colleagues to consider unintended consequences of this bill before bringing it to the House floor. While reproducibility is a fundamental assumption of science, that should not be conflated with the idea that all non-reproducible science is incorrect. There are many cases where reproducibility is simply not possible, but that does not negate the importance of the conclusions that have been reached. In 1994, the comet Shoemaker-Levy collided with our celestial neighbor Jupiter, providing a first-hand look at cosmic collisions and insight on both the comet and the planet. The devastating Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has provided untold insights into everything ranging from ecosystem responses to oil to impacts on communities' physical and mental health. Because studies stemming from these one-time incidents are not reproducible, it does not mean that their methodology and results are flawed. Additionally, longitudinal studies, especially in the public health arena, are often too large and take so much time (e.g., a study following a cohort for multiple decades) that they could not realistically be reproduced but are instead replicated through statistical modeling. Under the current language of the HONEST Act, similar studies within EPA's purview would be excluded from the agency's use, potentially keeping the agency from making a proposal or disseminating information and limiting the amount of good science from which the EPA can makes decisions. The bill also requires scientific and technical information used to make federal regulations be posted online. While the language specifies that personally identifiable information used in these studies be redacted (unlike in the bill's predecessor, the Secret Science Reform Act), the HONEST Act goes on to state that personal information could be disclosed to anyone who signs a confidentiality agreement with the administrator. If federal regulations are made that impact a specific industry, the same industry could access the personal records of those who participated in the study. Knowing that their personal information could be made accessible to anyone would likely reduce the number of willing participants in such a study, again limiting the best science available to the agency. Additionally, redacting information from documents is a costly and time-consuming process that often requires the work of an entire office. The EPA's limited resources, rather than being spent fulfilling its mission ``to protect human health and the environment'' would instead be spent redacting, potentially hundreds of thousands of documents. Conversely, the bill does not define who would make this information publicly available online (and make appropriate redactions) if the EPA were relying on a published, peer- reviewed study performed by another entity, such as an academic research institution. This would potentially impose unexpected costs on the institution. Rather than improving the quality of science used by the agency, this bill would instead limit the amount of ``best available science'' available for decision-making and would require significant time and manpower. Such an impact would threaten the health, not only of our nation, but of our country's citizens who rely on the EPA to protect their well- being. The unintended consequences from this bill are myriad, and the ocean science and technology community stands ready to help you evaluate them before considering this legislation on the House floor. Respectfully, Jonathan W. White, RADM (Ret.), USN, President and CEO, Consortium for Ocean Leadership.

Mr. TONKO. The Union of Concerned Scientists has recently said that ``the bill effectively prevents the EPA from using the weight of scientific evidence to protect public health and the environment.'' They go on to say ``this doesn't make sense.'' I agree. This doesn't make any sense. Instead, I hope that, as a Congress, we can turn our attention to truly protecting scientific integrity. We must protect the scientific process from political interference, which is why I recently introduced the Scientific Integrity Act, which will require our United States Federal agencies to adopt or strengthen policies to insulate government-directed research from the influence of political pressure and special interests. Under the Scientific Integrity Act, Federal agencies that conduct or fund scientific research would be required to develop clear, written scientific integrity policies that can guarantee research is being done and published without undue influence, censorship, or distortion. Scientific and technological information would be able to flow more easily while protecting privacy, confidentiality, and our national security. Twenty-four separate Federal agencies have developed scientific integrity policies to date. This legislation would also codify and strengthen these policies within a common framework. Every Democrat on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has supported the Scientific Integrity Act, and I invite all of my colleagues across the aisle to join us in working to truly protect scientific integrity. I urge a ``no'' vote on the so-called HONEST Act.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 34, a bill that would strike most of the internet privacy guarantees protecting the American people today. I have grave concerns with this effort. Our agenda here should be working on behalf of our constituents to protect their privacy and give them, not their service providers, data security. Instead, this effort would eviscerate any real online privacy protections and would limit data security. Some of my colleagues have claimed that this commonsense rule has created challenges for consumers. I have found just the opposite. My office has been inundated with calls demanding that Congress protect their privacy and data security by opposing S.J. Res. 34. To everyone who has called, I hear you and I stand with you in opposing this harmful and misguided effort. Back at home in New York's capital region, I have been hearing from many people who are frightened by the thought that S.J. Res. 34 will become law and the last shred of their online privacy will be lost forever. They know how much information their internet service provider has mined from their search and browsing history, including financial, medical, and other very personal and sensitive details. They rightly believe that they should have a say in when that information can be bought and when it can be sold. They understand that gutting these privacy protections would mean that internet service providers could sell their private information without their permission. It means their private internet browsing and search history, the text of their emails, and their mobile app usage can all be sold without their permission. They have a right to control what they search for, their financial information, their health insurance, and information about their children. They have a right to protect their Social Security numbers and the contents of their emails. These rights are enshrined in our Constitution. Privacy rules also require providers to use reasonable measures to protect consumers' personal information, a clear and commonsense standard that all who do business online should be required to uphold. Finally, internet service providers must notify customers if hackers breach the system and may have access to their private data. With hackers from Russia and elsewhere running rampant across the net, this is a critical provision for our American families. This is not too much to ask. The American people deserve to know that their data will be protected and that they will be notified if their data is compromised.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, a resounding ``no'' to TrumpCare, President Trump's broken promise to our great America. There is no disputing the devastation this bill will cause for America's working families. TrumpCare will rip health insurance away from 24 million people. It will raise costs for consumers and lower standards of care, with premiums rising and deductibles increasing by an average of $1,500. TrumpCare will eliminate required mental health and addiction benefits, jeopardizing recovery for millions of Americans in the midst of this opioid epidemic. It imposes a crushing new age tax on seniors and those approaching retirement, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars. TrumpCare steals from Medicare, and it cuts Medicaid by $839 billion, mercilessly putting children, the elderly, the disabled, and our most vulnerable at risk. It does all this to give a $1 trillion tax cut to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations. The American people overwhelmingly reject this bill. Defeat TrumpCare. Vote ``no.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, our first duty here is to the American people. I rise to call on my colleagues to fulfill that duty and reject TrumpCare. President Trump made big promises on health care during his campaign. TrumpCare proves those promises were empty. He promised a plan that would cover everyone. TrumpCare would cover even fewer people than were covered before the Affordable Care Act. He promised better coverage. TrumpCare guts basic healthcare standards. Many TrumpCare plans won't be worth the paper they are printed on. He promised cheaper coverage. TrumpCare breaks that promise, driving up premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs for everyone. It also hits our Nation's seniors with a devastating age tax or perhaps a senior tax that will literally price many seniors out of the healthcare market. Mr. Speaker, TrumpCare is a tax break for millionaires parading as a healthcare plan. It will do unimaginable harm to our rural hospitals and our economy. The bill was written in secret. It was rushed through this Chamber. And it represents a big-time broken promise. I urge my colleagues to reject TrumpCare.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the occasion of International Women's Day. You may also notice that I am wearing red, a symbol of solidarity with the A Day Without Women campaign. This is an important occasion for us to recognize the economic power and impact that women have in our economy and in our lives. It is long past time that we as a nation provide for fairness in the workplace by ensuring equal pay for equal work, defend the right to choose, end violence against women, secure access to affordable childcare and healthcare for working families, and strengthen paid family leave. I was proud to march with thousands of my constituents and millions of women all across the country during the Women's March. We showed that we are united and that together we will stand up for one another and speak out for anyone being trampled over, run through or pushed aside. Women are not objects to be owned, objectified or treated as second class citizens. Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights. The Women's March was an important moment to secure our rights to speak and be heard. Today, on International Women's Day, as many observe the Day Without a Woman Strike, remember that women's voices are the voices of our coworkers, our mothers, sisters, daughters, leaders, community members, consumers, and major economic players. I stand with the many women today taking part in the Day Without a Woman strike, and the millions more in New York State and throughout the nation who share these values.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 96.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, the energy world was saddened by the recent passing of Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld on January 27. I rise today to pay tribute to his extraordinary life and countless contributions. Known as the godfather of energy efficiency, Dr. Rosenfeld's efforts brought awareness to the tremendous benefits of efficiency. As a physicist at UC Berkeley, Dr. Rosenfeld became interested in efficiency during the 1973 oil embargo. He soon began pushing efficiency standards for appliances and buildings for California, and eventually for the entire Nation. He went on to work as an adviser at the Department of Energy and served on the California Energy Commission. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a group that Dr. Rosenfeld helped found, savings from energy efficiency gains have averted the need to build more than 300 large power plants since 1990. The EPA has estimated that between 1992 and 2014, its ENERGY STAR program, a program built on the shoulders of Dr. Rosenfeld's work, has helped families save over $350 billion on utility bills while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.5 billion metric tons. The cleanest and cheapest kilowatt-hour of electricity that one may take advantage of is the one we do not use. We salute Dr. Rosenfeld.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the centennial celebration of John M. Fiore of Schenectady, New York, who turns 100 years old today, February 2nd, 2017. John was born on February 2, 1917 to Vito and Maria Fiore. He graduated from Mt. Pleasant High School in 1934 and was the first freshman in the class when it opened in 1931. After graduating John worked for GE as a Production Specialist with more than 45 years of service. John went on to serve his country in World War II from 1942-1946, and received an honorary discharge as a Corporal. In 1953 John married Mary Gerardi who passed away in 1972 after a long battle with illness. He takes great pride in his family. John's parents came from Italy penniless and raised seven children, all of whom lived into their 90s and were outstanding citizens. John is known to friends and family for his gardening, and shows a generous spirit in sharing fresh produce with his family and friends. Earlier in life John was also an active bowler, golfer and in later years took up duplicate bridge playing three times a week. John is also a sports fan. He is a longtime fan of the New York Yankees and New York Knicks. One of his greatest joys is rooting for Union College, Notre Dame, and the University of Connecticut, all schools attended by members of his family. John's greatest role has been that of doting father. He took an active role in his son Nicholas's activities, including Carmen Little League, Babe Ruth, CYO Basketball and Pop Warner Football. Later, he watched his grandson Nicholas, Jr. play recreational basketball. He was also a player agent for Carmen Little League and later served as Commissioner of Rotterdam Babe Ruth.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's tragic refugee ban that would have barred women like the Syrian violinist who has performed at the White House and who is worried about her family that remain in Aleppo.