Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 66.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, this House, the people's House, will vote to take the first step in a blindly ideological crusade to break our entire healthcare system and rip health insurance away from more than 20 million Americans. Repeal would cripple our Nation's hospitals and create a $723 million budget shortfall in my congressional district alone, resulting in countless job losses across our great country. Repeal would return everyone to the days of big insurance companies and their denying of needed care due to annual and lifetime limits on coverage. Repeal would mean higher costs for individuals who seek routine preventative care, like mammograms or birth control. This is not what the people want. People are sick and tired of Republicans playing political games with their health care. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. Deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, and prescription drug prices are still too high for many working families. People are frustrated when they are faced with narrow networks or surprise medical bills. Unfortunately, these are not the problems that Republicans are focused on fixing. In fact, the only problem Republicans seem to be trying to solve is that too many people have health insurance. Republicans want to roll back the progress that has been made and create a healthcare system that eliminates the guarantees of affordable coverage, by which families will face even higher deductibles and copays--a concept they euphemistically call ``skin in the game,'' and those with preexisting conditions, including expectant mothers, would again face a closed door instead of care.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, last May, Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the first major environmental law in decades, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. Before this reform, it had been widely acknowledged that the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, was broken. The law was hampered by litigation since shortly after it was passed in 1976, and was rendered almost completely ineffective. It has only been 7 months since over 400 Members voted for this reform, which requires a number of new rulemakings by the EPA. A primary motivation to reform TSCA was to remove procedural hurdles that were preventing the EPA from regulating dangerous chemicals. But the bill before us today would impose new, unnecessary obstacles in the rulemaking process, which will impede agencies that already are struggling with shrinking budgets and time constraints. Even some of the Members that had concerns with TSCA reform, myself included, would agree that it is imperative that these rulemakings go forward efficiently in order to protect public health and to give the private sector the certainty that it asks for when it supported the reform effort. Unlike 233 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I did not vote for this bill; but I do firmly believe that the rulemakings required by this law must be done effectively and quickly. Unfortunately, the bill before us today would undermine that process. For the record, I do not believe any amendments will fix the underlying bill, and I hope my colleagues will oppose this bill later today. While Congress has moved on to other priorities, the EPA has been hard at work implementing the law as Congress intended. Since being signed into law in June, the EPA has already put into place new processes to review new chemicals, which is exactly what this House instructed them to do. A number of rulemakings will soon get underway focused on how the EPA prioritizes chemicals for evaluation and how it will conduct risk evaluations. Other rules regarding the EPA's chemical inventory and the process for collecting fees will also be needed. The Members that worked on TSCA reform deferred many of these procedural decisions to the EPA because we lacked the expertise necessary to determine every detail of the most effective, streamlined regulatory process. We are not toxicologists or chemists, so we empowered the scientists that do this work to receive public feedback and create regulations, based on congressional intent, within a reasonable amount of time. It is clear that an overwhelming number of Members of the House believe that the EPA needed these tools when we passed the Lautenberg bill to fix the EPA's chemical program. Let's not tie the agency's hands as it seeks effective implementation. We have seen what happens with a broken chemical safety law. Let's not go back to that. I would also caution against the bill's requirement to choose the least costly regulatory option. People familiar with TSCA will know the term ``least burdensome,'' which required the EPA to select the restriction that was demonstrated to be the least burdensome to address identified risks. In practice, this requirement was so onerous that the EPA was not even able to restrict known carcinogens like asbestos. The Lautenberg bill ended this requirement. Let's not reinstate this problem for our agencies. Personally, I do not believe my amendment goes far enough. We should exempt every major environmental law responsible for protecting Americans' air, water, and land from this bill. We have seen in many cases that these rules do not hurt the economy. They protect public health and provide much greater benefits to society than costs. Many of our bedrock environmental statutes require agencies to review and update their rules periodically. Members of Congress should not prevent an agency from simply doing the job that is required of it under the law. But in terms of this amendment and TSCA reform, Congress knew exactly what would be asked of the EPA in order to carry out the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act when we passed it by a vote of 403-12 just a few months ago. We cannot tell the EPA to do something and then tie its hands and expect it to get it done. This amendment is simple. Do Members of this body want to give our regulatory agencies the tools they need to implement the laws that Congress has passed? And, in my view, it should not matter if these laws were passed 6 months ago or 60 years ago. Or should we make it more difficult to implement effective rulemakings, even when there is legislative consensus about the need for them? Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which requires that an agency publish a list of scientific information relating to a rule or expected to relate to the rule for each rule that an agency expects to propose for the following year. I am concerned that this amendment would create unintended consequences and operate as a one-way ratchet to slow down and stop the rulemaking process by requiring burdensome disclosures and creating options for procedural gridlock. Agencies are already required to publish relevant data in support of a rule during these rulemaking processes. Rules that do not appear to be based on a reasoned analysis of relevant data may be vacated by reviewing courts as arbitrary or capricious. Moreover, data acquired through federally funded research is already accessible to researchers who have a legitimate purpose. I am also concerned that because this amendment does not define scientific information or clarify the scope of this publication requirement, peer reviewed materials may be taken out of context or otherwise misused for political purposes. In so doing, this requirement may chill feedback in the scientific community, undermine agencies' ability to adopt the best rules possible, or otherwise manufacture delays in the rulemaking process. Any additional requirements in this area should strengthen, rather than weaken, the process of science-based rulemaking. Given these concerns, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Just a quick comment. We have talked about much here this evening. I joined you a bit after you started. I don't know if you mentioned the hospital situation.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Garamendi for bringing us together in this Special Order format to talk about some key critical components that address American families significantly. Representative Garamendi and Representative Marcy Kaptur, who both do their homework, are a great addition to the House because they challenge us with facts, not fiction. They care deeply and passionately about improving and enhancing the quality of life. So to stand with both on this issue is a good feeling for me. Just a couple of observations: I think it is okay for government to have a heart. We speak to the heart and soul of working families across this country by understanding that health care is not a privilege; it is a right. So let's begin with that fundamental basic observation, a right. What we have seen with this right is that over 30 million Americans have been added to the rolls of the insured over the course of the Affordable Care Act. Now, Representative Kaptur did a great job of speaking to history of Medicare, of Social Security, and of the Affordable Care Act, as did Representative Garamendi. I remember being at the 75th anniversary celebration of Social Security, and people were talking about the discrediting going on before Social Security was enacted into law. There were those who demonized it before it became law. There were those who have fought it ever since. They don't want that right for working families. I would suggest that Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act are rock solid elements of a foundation upon which to grow quality of life and longevity. It is a basic fundamental additive that, when brought to our working families across this country, we are providing a service and we are addressing them with dignity. That is what this is about. The demonization of the Affordable Care Act is interesting. Because if you look at polling, you will find that people say that ObamaCare is destroying the Nation. Well, what about the Affordable Care Act? That is working. My friends, it is the same issue, it is the same concept, and it is the same program. So what we have tried to do is discredit a program that took on a major challenge, took on major industries, and needed to provide a balance and an actuarial outcome that is providing a go-forward and accomplish what you have enacted as a mission. The actuarial science has got to be precise. So for those who want to repeal, they are talking about, in cases, pulling a brick out of the foundation and having it get wobbly, and it is going to crash the marketplace. We are going to have all of these people who have been enrolled or have been forever enrolled in health care impacted by rising costs and disruptive outcomes that will put them at risk. So like the Social Security Program before the ACA, like Medicare before the ACA, as you floated these boats, as you went forward with time, you learned where you needed to tweak, and you adjusted, by amendment format, to make the program stronger. That is what we have been asking for in a partnership here in the House and with the Senate. Let's work on those areas that may need improvement, but do not repeal because repeal without replacement is a disaster. It is a disaster waiting to happen. We have provided hope for working families across this country. We have had the testimony presented to us, anecdotal evidence, that this is working, that for the first time families have enjoyed a connection to a system, a standardized approach. What was the program? People say: Well, I don't want to pay for someone else's health care. You have been paying for it before the ACA. It was called the emergency room. It wasn't standardized because whoever you got at that emergency room in whatever location, as you traveled looking for assistance, didn't provide a steady flow. It was a wasteful outcome for taxpayers and an insufficient outcome, a cruel outcome for those consumers who were impacted by being underinsured or uninsured. So let's set the record straight. We have had a program up and running for 8 years now. The Republicans have chastised this program saying it needs to be repealed. We have taken over 65 votes, or 65 votes, I believe, to repeal, but there has never been a replacement plan. So what kind of gimmick is this to pull away a program that is working for tens of millions of families added to the rolls but not replace? That is disaster waiting to happen. So we challenge our colleagues here in the House and in the Senate down the hall to be academic about this, to be compassionate about it, to be passionate in our resolve, and to make a difference by putting together the improvements that we require and not repealing. Now, we look at the Affordable Care Act and what it means to our health care. But if you repeal, you will wreak damage on the budget. You will destroy our economy. You will have a huge workforce displacement, and you will slash care for America's working families. Is this the outcome that we want? Remember, we were the last industrialized nation to come to the table and provide guaranteed health care for our families. That is not something of which we are proud. That was destructive. That was insensitive. It was not effective. It was a waste of tax dollars the way we did it. So now we go forward with a program that allows us to now take a look at the history, albeit brief, on the Affordable Care Act, but understanding where we need to fine tune. We do that, and the challenge is there for all of us: take the cost out of the system for a stronger future and provide at least the same level of quality, if not enhanced quality, as we go forward. That should unite us in a common cause, cutting the cost of the program and enhancing the quality of services provided. What a great mission for all of us to embark upon. So let's not play politics with the health care for tens of millions of people who are new to the system and for all of us who have been covered routinely by the system. We can do better than that. Let the lessons of Social Security and Medicare, which, as my colleagues indicated earlier, address the American public with dignity, improvement, enhancement, and hope, the best commodity we can deliver as a government to her people. So I thank Representative Garamendi for the opportunity for us to speak to these issues. Frankness is required right now. The lack of theater would be an improvement. No theater on this. Let's settle for facts, not fiction, and working together to bring about what is a sound resolve that allows us to provide stability and success for the American public. That, I don't think, is too much to ask. So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) for bringing us together.

Mr. TONKO. But representing a number of hospitals, from stand-alone clinics to some very specific specialty type of health centers, they are all concerned about the impact of repeal. And certainly, being a major employer, if not the major employer in some of my counties, as you reduce that care, you are reducing the workforce. So now we are creating another impact, and it is why the ripple effect of repeal is so strong and devastating, and will raise our deficit.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi. As you talk about public sentiment about Social Security, the Affordable Care Act, and hearing the evidence you have provided from your constituent within your district, it becomes very apparent where the American public is. When polled recently, only 20 percent of the American public is in support of efforts to repeal without replacement--20 percent. So the great, great majority understands what is going on here. We have also seen during the recent campaign season, which probably went a year and a half to 2 years long, a lot of talk about repealing the Affordable Care Act, undoing the act. That happened in the same timeframe as 11.5 million people were added to the rolls for 2017. So there is an appeal here that is drawing the American public toward the coverage provided by ACA. So the sentiment here is to get things done and provide, again, the stability. I am also a cosponsor of legislation entitled Strengthening Social Security Act that would improve how we calculate the benefits for Social Security. We are not advancing reducing those benefits or raising the retirement age to 69 or whatever level; we are talking about enhancing benefits. When you talk to seniors, they will say we either have got nothing or we got just a bit of an increase that was taken away with the other hand for some other purpose. So, yes, we need to revisit just how we give that green light to a COLA adjustment, and we need to calculate that approval with items that are truly essential for the senior citizens, not big screen televisions or certain items that are adding to a luxurious note, but one that speaks to their basic core needs to live day to day. So the Strengthening Social Security Act does just that. It takes into account all of the essentials in that calculus that will determine whether or not a COLA adjustment is given that given year. So that is important. I also believe it is time for us to look at that cap that we have created, that we have placed on contributions to Social Security. You know, some people by February 12 or 14, whatever date it is, are done paying. They are done contributing by that point in the year. Well, the standards of $118,000, or $127,000 coming this year, are just capturing most of those revenues. The hardship is placed on the working, middle- income community, those looking to ascend the middle class. There could be a far greater contribution from other income strata that we ought to look at to provide stability. A point needs to be made that Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act are all intertwined. There were strengtheners that were provided for these programs. There was a partnership of revenue stream that was calculated and assumed that again provides for the quality of response to the consuming public, and especially those in senior years. I have a large percentage of senior citizens in the makeup of my constituency. It is important to recognize that many who are on Medicare end up getting Medicaid assistance because of situations that are called upon where they are perhaps placed in nursing homes, adult homes, or the like. So we have to be cognizant here of the public sentiment, where is their thinking, and we know exactly what they want. They want stability for these programs. They want strengthening of the programs. They want to make certain that all of these efforts that have lasted for decades, or were introduced as late as 2010, will continue so they have a future that is that more secure, that more certain. So tonight we talk and implore our colleagues to please help improve the Affordable Care Act. Let's not repeal, and certainly do not repeal without a replacement plan. That is a disaster that will really cause havoc in the marketplace. It is one that doesn't prove to be actuarially sound. Also, let's make certain that we don't have these efforts again to voucherize Medicare, to privatize Social Security. These are programs that have provided stability. When I came into the House in 2009, it was at the lowest point of the recession which President Obama was handed upon his entering into the Presidency. There were 700,000, 800,000, 900,000 jobs lost a month in the deepest, darkest moment of the recession. What did we see? We saw individuals who took their lifetime's worth of savings and entrusted them to a marketplace, and they lost everything for which they had ever worked, and others realized they didn't lose a single cent of Social Security. Therein lies a tremendous bit of testimony as to the meritorious achievements of a Social Security system, one that provided that safety net for all families, one that made certain there was some sort of continuous flow, a backup, a reinforcement, as you went into retirement years. We are reminded of Medicare and what the results were for retirees, how long they were expected to live and what their quality of life was like. It was tremendously, favorably turned around with the benefits of Medicare. So with an impassioned plea, I encourage this House, the Senate, to do the right thing: stand for the American public and allow them to be addressed with dignity with these programs that have proven themselves. And where there is a need to further assist, as there has been time and time and time again with Social Security, as there has been time and time again with Medicare, let's provide that same approach to the Affordable Care Act. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing us together and being able to share our thoughts and advocacy to do the right thing.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, if I just might, I am listening to Representative Kaptur talk of the interaction she had with her constituents, and I would just add my similar experience. Some of the most cherished efforts of the Affordable Care Act are about preexisting conditions. Being a woman, being a pregnant woman, or being a woman or a man fighting cancer made it very difficult for people to get that insurance, and lifetime caps. You know, people being rolled into surgery, wheeled into surgery, and being told that they were discontinuing their plan. So these are elements of the Affordable Care Act that could be at risk if we start playing around with the actuarial balance that has been achieved. And preexisting conditions, they rang right up there as one of the biggest concerns people have about repeal.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce who is doing a great job leading us in the House.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. TONKO. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill is far from perfect. It has some very good provisions and others that I oppose. I rise today to highlight the particular sections I worked on to get included in this bill. I have worked across the aisle with my colleagues in the past on similar drinking water issues, and I have been asking my E&C colleagues for a hearing on broader reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act through this entire session. While we have not been successful in having a hearing, I remain optimistic that my colleagues on the other side will make this a top priority next year. With that said, the bill before us today includes a number of provisions very similar to language authored by myself, by Ranking Member Pallone, and many of our Democratic colleagues contained within the AQUA Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 2016. We know communities and low-income homeowners need assistance replacing lead service lines. This bill authorizes a new $300 million grant program to get lead out of our communities. It gives priority to schools, to childcare centers, and other facilities that serve children. The bill also makes it easier for States to administer Federal funds. In addition to these provisions from the AQUA Act, there are a number of other positive things included in this bill. We have heard about the struggles of small and disadvantaged communities. In my district, the mayor of Castleton, Joseph Keegan, testified that his community needs help but simply cannot afford a loan. He suggested allowing grants. This bill includes a significant grant program specifically for that purpose. It also gives more flexibility for tribal governments and encourages innovative technologies. The bill improves public notification requirements when a system violates the Lead and Copper Rule, an issue the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has fought for to help prevent another tragedy like that in Flint. And it includes an authorization for a program to help schools test for lead. Unfortunately, this bill fails to make sufficient commitments to Buy American. We must include stronger Buy American language in the statutes. Finally, I am disheartened to see such a divisive bit of language on California water issues added at the last minute. It is frustrating to see a good bill, negotiated in good faith, get loaded up with a poison pill at the end. Ultimately, this bill has taken some good first steps to invest in our Nation's water systems and provide the city of Flint with the assistance it needs and deserves. But much more is needed. Some $384 billion is required over the next 20 years to simply keep up our drinking water systems, and 18 million Americans live in communities that violated the Lead and Copper Rule in 2015. We must, and we can, do better. It is time to get to work. There are many more provisions included in the AQUA Act that I hope this body seriously considers moving forward. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, last week, the National Science Foundation announced that the 109th Airlift Wing provided a humanitarian medical evacuation flight from Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in Antarctica to astronaut Buzz Aldrin, one of the first men to walk on the Moon. As the Representative for New York's 20th Congressional District, I am, indeed, honored that we are home to Stratton Air National Guard Base, which hosts the 109th Airlift Wing in Scotia, New York. Their unit flies the world's only ski-equipped LC-130s, better known as Ski Birds. The 109th continues a proud tradition of critical contributions that New York's capital region makes to our national security, our economy, and yes, our standing in the world. I am, indeed, proud of their unique service to this country and thank them for their continued support.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Staff Sergeant Aaron Tobler, an Albany native and La Salle Institute of Troy graduate who was recently selected for the Outstanding Airman of the Year award by the United States Air Force. The Air Force provides this recognition to top enlisted Airmen for their unique individual achievements in leadership, job performance, significant self-improvement, and community involvement. Sergeant Tobler is a fine example of the best the capital region, the Air Force, and our Nation have to offer. In addition to his military service, he serves as a manager at the California Department of Social Services, mentors local youth, and is a regular blood donor. I thank Staff Sergeant Tobler for his military and civilian service to our Nation. He and his colleagues are truly what has made, and continues to make, this country great. 109th Airlift Buzz Aldrin Evacuation

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 26, 2016, I was absent from the House and missed roll call Nos. 557 and 558. Had I been present for roll call No. 557, motion to suspend the Rules and pass H.R. 3537, the Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2016, I would have voted ``yea.'' Had I been present for roll call No. 558, motion to suspend the Rules and pass H.R. 5392, the No Veterans Crisis Line Call Should Go Unanswered Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I think what you are pointing to here is a very important component of the agreement. We do lose the control, the direct authority, required of us by the constituency that places its trust in each and every Representative that is elected to come to Congress. They believe rightfully that we are going to have their best interests. We vote in accordance with what we hear from them about standards that should be maintained, established, and implemented; and to have that passed on to a court of whatever, of a format that is far removed from a given situation and may be looking at just greed as a factor, an unwillingness to pay abundantly well for what our standards should be maintained for just reasons, moves the process away from us with any control that we might have had taken away. I think that anonymity is a dangerous outcome as a result of this sort of agreement. So I think that, again, there is a lot of fine print in the agreement that has to be really examined and thoroughly reviewed so that we are not putting our situations at risk and our communities at risk. All in all, it is wanting to maintain standards that will respond to the needs of the environment. We know how critical that is. We know how much improvement is required and that we make great gains. But for those who signed into the process--some were actually directly communicating to the executive branch saying: let's get this fast track going. Why would you circumvent your role? Why would you, as a Member of the House, want to remove yourself from the process when we should be here reviewing, examining, recommending, and at least having some sort of input that won't pass it over and absolve ourselves of given responsibilities? So I appreciate, again, your yielding, Representative Pocan.

Mr. TONKO. Doesn't this give corporations an opportunity to undo regulations that are established by our country or laws that are established?

Mr. TONKO. Congress has very little opportunity to adjust. It is basically a thumbs up, thumbs down. We can recommend. It is not like we can make major adjustments. The administrator overseeing the document will have to take that back and make recommended changes. You have to bring other nations together to get agreement because it is 40 percent of the world's GDP that is the audience for this given negotiated settlement. This TPP covers a huge portion of the world's GDP. So there are a lot of partners that would have a say in the process. We can recommend, and then the changes that we can inspire are quite mild compared to what needs to be done by the framers of the settlement.