Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson), my colleague and friend for yielding and for leading us on this very important amendment. Improving our artillery weapons system has been identified as a need by the Army Modernization Strategy. This amendment would make a modest increase to the Army's weapons and munitions advanced technology funding for extended-range cannon artillery. We know that with additional research, development, and testing, we can make meaningful advances to these systems. Unfortunately, these systems have been overlooked in recent years as we have chosen to modernize other parts of our forces. During this time, other countries have begun to produce artillery with new capabilities such as improved range, mobility, and accuracy. Not only does this increase the risk to our warfighters in the field, it has encouraged our allies to consider purchasing these systems from elsewhere. I know we are capable of designing and building the best artillery in the world. I have seen it firsthand at the Watervliet Arsenal and Benet Laboratories in my district where hundreds of women and men support our warfighters by developing and manufacturing cutting-edge cannons and mortars.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey for yielding. Thank you, Representative Watson Coleman, for leading us in this Special Order that is so significant. I stand with many in lending my voice on behalf of the LGBT community in the 20th Congressional District of New York, and across the map of New York for that matter, and across the Nation. We mark Pride Month each year as an opportunity to celebrate the steps that have been taken in the fight for justice, the fight for equality and civil rights for our friends and neighbors in the LGBTQ community. As we reflect on victories, I believe it is critical that we acknowledge the challenges before us; challenges like archaic bathroom laws that conjure up the ghosts of segregation and separate water fountains; challenges like that of Supreme Court Chief Justices who refuse to obey rulings from the Supreme Court when the highest court dictates that marriage equality is indeed the law of the land; challenges like initiatives that are borne out of fear, out of bigotry, and out of misunderstanding; and even in Washington, D.C., large routine appropriations bills that fail because one side of the aisle simply cannot support an amendment that ensures taxpayer dollars are not awarded to small businesses that, indeed, discriminate. These actions hurt each and every one of us. When my LGBT friends are robbed of opportunity that hurts my community and local economies in New York's Capital Region, there needs to be a voice expressed. When LGBT kids are bullied, that teaches those who witness the act that it is okay to diminish the humanity of those that may be different from us. These challenges are, unfortunately, a natural reaction to the massive strides we have taken in a short couple of years on the way toward equality. That does not make it acceptable, and we must work together to stamp out discrimination of any kind wherever and however it may exist. Martin Luther King, Jr., has famously said: ``The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' That is where we are headed. We will get there sooner if we embrace the ideals of tolerance, of togetherness, and certainly of inclusion. Another civil rights giant, our friend and our colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, spoke words that I will never forget. He said: ``Make good trouble.'' That is exactly what we must do during Pride Month and every month until our goals are achieved. I thank the Congressional LGBT Caucus and its leadership for assembling us here today. Let's take this opportunity to recommit ourselves to the noble and simple goal that everyone--that is everyone--has a shot at the American Dream regardless of their creed, regardless of their color, and regardless of their sexual orientation and identity. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to share thoughts this evening, and I thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. We should be addressing our failing infrastructure, funding the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control to control Zika, helping the people of Flint who were exposed to lead in the drinking water, investing in clean energy, mitigating the risks of climate change, and fulfilling our constitutional responsibility to fund our government. Instead of attending to the many important challenges we face, we are here to consider yet another bill that will undermine our Clean Air Act. Consideration of this bill is a waste of time. No wonder people across the country are frustrated and disappointed with Washington. We are not doing the things that will create opportunities to inspire our young people and fully employ everyone who wants and needs to work. Instead of doing something to improve public health and our environment, we are trying to undermine those dynamics. H.R. 4775 is a bill that will do nothing to further improve our air quality. It offers no assistance to State and local governments. It offers no assistance to businesses that want to do the right thing and find ways to improve our environmental and social performance of their operations. This bill creates new loopholes through which polluters will add toxic substances to our air and erode the substantial gains we have made in public health under the Clean Air Act. H.R. 4775 has taken many approaches to undermining the Clean Air Act: it doubles the NAAQS review cycle from 5 to 10 years, which will prevent standards from being set using the most up-to-date science; it delays the implementation of the 2015 ozone NAAQS up to 8 years; and it alters the criteria for establishing a NAAQS from one based solely on protecting public health to one that would include considerations of affordability and current technical feasibility. These are just a few among many harmful changes in this bill. That is why this bill has inspired such opposition. We have received letters of opposition signed by more than 130 environmental and public health organizations as well as a veto threat from the President's administration. There is nothing new here. Once again, we hear the false choice presented: jobs or clean air. But that is not the choice, and we have decades of experience with local and Federal policy to regulate air pollution as proof that we do not have to choose between being employed and being healthy. This false choice is even more absurd when you consider that there is one choice we must make every day about 20,000 times to stay alive: the choice to breathe. That is the average number of breaths that each adult takes every day of his or her life. Children, whose lungs are smaller average more breaths than that; and if you are exercising, that number will understandably be higher as well. That is a lot of exposure. So it is vitally important that the air we take in some 20,000 times per day is as clean as possible. Ozone is extremely harmful. We have known this for about 70 years. We did not know the precise chemical nature of ozone back in 1947 when the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors established the Nation's first air pollution control program. Back then it was called smog. In the middle of a heat wave, the smog that formed over L.A. caused people's eyes to burn and a scraping sensation in their throats. It literally became painful to breathe. Although Los Angeles has long been recognized as a location with special challenges in air pollution due to geography and prevailing weather patterns, it is not the only city that experienced these problems. They were reported in other industrial cities as well. We have come a long way since that time, but we did not clean up the air significantly until we created an enforceable regulatory structure that applied a set of standards to both businesses and individuals. H.R. 4775 undermines the single most important criteria in the Clean Air Act: the mandate to set a standard that will allow every one of our citizens, no matter their age or location, to take 20,000 breaths of clean, safe air every day. We can certainly afford clean air. In fact, we must afford clean air. We have demonstrated time and time again that we can develop and deploy technologies that will achieve those ends. H.R. 4775 is a dangerous and unnecessary bill, and I oppose the bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this latest assault on public health and to support the further improvements of air quality for our constituents. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record, for the sake of this dialogue, the over 130 letters of opposition we have received. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time. May 10, 2016. Dear Representative: Clean air is fundamental for good health, and the Clean Air Act promises all Americans air that is safe to breathe. The undersigned public health and medical organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 4775, the so-called ``Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2016.'' Despite the clear scientific evidence of the need for greater protection from ozone pollution, and the Clean Air Act's balanced implementation timeline that provides states clear authority and plenty of time to plan and then work to reduce pollution to meet the updated standard, H.R. 4775 imposes additional delays and sweeping changes that will threaten health, particularly the health of children, seniors and people with chronic disease. In contrast to what the bill's title implies, H.R. 4775 reaches far beyond implementation of the current ozone standards. It also permanently weakens the Clean Air Act and future air pollution health standards for all criteria pollutants. Specifically, H.R. 4775 weakens implementation and enforcement of all lifesaving air pollution health standards including those for carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. It would also permanently undermine the Clean Air Act as a public health law. The Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental Protection Agency review the science on the health impacts of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide air pollutants every five years and update these national ambient air quality standards according to the current science. H.R. 4775 would lengthen the review period of the air pollution health standards from once every five years to once every ten years for all criteria pollutants. As the science continues to evolve, EPA and states should have the best and most current data inform air pollution cleanup. New research shows additional impacts that air pollution has on human health. For example, on March 29, 2016, a new study, Particulate Matter Exposure and Preterm Birth: Estimates of U.S. Attributable Burden and Economic Costs, was published that shows particulate air pollution is linked to nearly 16,000 preterm births per year. Under H.R. 4775, EPA would have to wait as much as a decade to consider new evidence when setting standards. Ten years is far too long to wait to protect public health from levels of pollution that the science shows are dangerous or for EPA to consider new information. In the 2015 review of the ozone standard, EPA examined an extensive body of scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone inflames the lungs, causing asthma attacks, resulting in emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths. A growing body of research indicates that ozone may also lead to central nervous system harm and may harm developing fetuses. In response to the evidence, EPA updated the ozone standards. While many of our organizations called for a more protective level, there is no doubt that the new 70 parts per billion standard provides greater health protections compared to the previous standard. H.R. 4775 would delay implementation of these more protective air pollution standards for at least eight years. This means eight years of illnesses and premature deaths that could have been avoided. Parents will not be told the truth about pollution in their community and states and EPA will not work to curb pollution to meet the new standards. The public has a fundamental right to know when pollution in the air they breathe or the water they drink threatens health, and Congress must not add eight years of delay to health protections and cleanup. H.R. 4775 would also permanently weaken implementation of the 2015 and future ozone standards. It would reduce requirements for areas with the most dangerous levels of ozone. Areas classified as being in ``extreme nonattainment'' of the standard would no longer need to build plans that include additional contingency measures if their initial plans fail to provide the expected pollution reductions. The Clean Air Act prioritizes reducing air pollution to protect the public's health, but H.R. 4775 opens a new opportunity for communities to avoid cleaning up, irrespective of the health impacts. Further, the bill would greatly expand the definition of an exceptional event. Under the Clean Air Act, communities can demonstrate to EPA that an exceptional event--such as a wildfire--should not ``count'' in determining whether their air quality meets the national standards. This bill would recklessly expand the definition of exceptional events to include high pollution days when the air is simply stagnant-- the precise air pollution episodes the Clean Air Act was designed to combat--and declare those bad air days as ``exceptional.'' Changing the accounting rules will undermine health protection and avoid pollution cleanup. Additionally, the bill would permanently weaken the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act is one of our nation's premier public health laws because it puts health first. The Act has a two-step process: first, EPA considers scientific evidence to decide how much air pollution is safe to breathe and sets the standard that is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. Then, states work with EPA to develop a plan to clean up air pollution to meet the standard. Cost and feasibility are fully considered in the second phase during implementation of the standard. This bill states that if EPA finds that ``a range of levels'' of an air pollutant protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, then EPA may consider technological feasibility in choosing a limit within that range. Further, the bill would interject implementation considerations including adverse economic and energy effects into the standard setting process. These changes will permanently weaken the core health-based premise of the Clean Air Act--protecting the public from known health effects of air pollution with a margin of safety. H.R. 4775 is a sweeping attack on lifesaving standards that protect public health from air pollution. This bill is an extreme attempt to undermine our nation's clean air health protections. Not only does it delay the long-overdue updated ozone standards and weaken their implementation and enforcement, it also permanently weakens the health protections against many dangerous air pollutants and the scientific basis of Clean Air Act standards. Please prioritize the health of your constituents and vote NO on H.R. 4775. Sincerely, Allergy & Asthma Network, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Children's Environmental Health Network, Health Care Without Harm, March of Dimes, National Association of County & City Health Officials, National Environmental Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Health Institute, Trust for America's Health.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, our ranking member, for yielding. It is with regret that I must stand here today in opposition to this bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. We have negotiated in good faith for many months to try to reach an agreement to fix EPA's chemical program. While there are some positive aspects of this bill, ultimately, I believe it falls short. Before I go into detail about my concerns, I want to express my appreciation for the work that has been done by both the majority and minority colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I want to commend the staffs, in particular those with whom I worked most closely from the minority side. As we just heard from Chairman Upton, the Senate passed a version in December of last year, after we had voted nearly unanimously to support our version of the bill. There are improvements over the bill passed by the Senate in December with this measure. I want to be clear that, in some ways, this bill will improve current law: EPA gains new authorities and resources; the regulatory bar to testing is lowered, allowing EPA to acquire more information about chemicals; the least burdensome standard that essentially has prevented EPA from regulating chemicals even when there was overwhelming evidence of harm has been removed; one of our Caucus' top priorities, expediting the review of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances, or PBTs, was largely retained; and the bill requires the EPA to consider the most vulnerable populations. But for every positive step to protect public health and the environment, there are numerous steps back that undermine those goals. For example, this bill weakens one of the few parts of TSCA as it stands today that actually works, Significant New Use Rules, or SNURs. EPA can require companies to provide notice of new uses of a chemical before a company can manufacture or import it. A chemical that might be suitable for industrial uses should not necessarily be in consumer products. This bill would make it more difficult to require notification and, therefore, to track chemicals being used in new ways or in imported products. Also, there is language on a negotiated rulemaking to limit reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts, a concept that was not in either the House or Senate bills but seems to have been stuck into this version somehow. The section on nomenclature represents an improvement over the Senate bill, but I still have concerns. This is just one of a number of seemingly benign provisions that are included to create loopholes that undermine the public health and environmental protection goals of TSCA. The bill retains the Senate's resource-intensive prioritization process that largely duplicates the work EPA has done already to identify chemicals of concern and place them on the work plan. Finally, there has been a lot of talk about the preemption section. Currently, States are able to restrict a chemical unless EPA decides to impose its own restrictions. Preemption has not often been an issue because EPA has rarely acted, but States today--today--have a number of options when it does happen. They can coenforce restrictions, apply for a waiver, or ban the chemical. Under this bill, States lose those rights to ban a chemical, and a waiver would be more difficult to obtain than under current law. Without a working Federal program, it has fallen upon States to lead the fight to get the most harmful chemicals out of commerce, and they have proven to be successful. They have been the champions, the driving force. I understand there are Members from States that have not acted to regulate chemicals. Please do not think this provision does not apply to you as well. When States are able to act aggressively, as they have, they can move industry and they can move EPA to act, which benefits our entire Nation. Unfortunately, this bill includes provisions that would severely inhibit States' ability to act. In January, 14 State attorneys general expressed their concerns with the preemption section. Those concerns were reiterated as recently as last week by some seven State environmental commissioners. Their concerns largely revolved around what has become known as pause preemption. During the pause period when EPA is evaluating a chemical, up to 3.5 years, States are prohibited from acting. Last year's House-passed version did not--did not--include the pause. While we accepted that States would be preempted when EPA makes a final determination about a chemical's risks, it would be unprecedented to prevent a State from acting before then. Overall, and very problematically, the Senate's State preemption framework is largely unchanged. We know a deal was struck in the Senate a few weeks ago, but I believe it is more accurate to call it a deal on prioritization, not preemption, because EPA would have to spend more time going through the unnecessary prioritization process. During this new window of time, States could rush to try to act before the pause kicks in. We have heard from a number of States that act by legislative action rather than regulations. They have told us that 12 to 18 months is simply not sufficient. The reality is, in most cases, States will not have enough opportunity to protect their citizens from harmful chemicals during the years it can take for EPA to do its own evaluation. Let us call the pause exactly what it is: unnecessary and precedent setting. It may be decades before we see the health benefits of this bill, but I fear it is only a matter of time before more and more bills come to the floor that prevent State regulation before a final Federal agency action. I can't help but ask: Will we rue the day that we gave a nod of approval to the pause preemption concept? It is a terrible policy, and we should not encourage it. It opens the door to unwelcome and dangerous precedent. The core tension of my evaluation of this bill is to balance between new Federal authorities and new restrictions on States. On balance, I do not believe that the modest improvements to the Federal program--not to mention the carve-outs for certain industries, many of which are unnecessarily broad--are sufficiently positive to warrant these new restrictions. You have heard during this debate that our system is broken and that the improvements, of which there are some, are better than nothing, which is what we have now for existing chemicals. But better than nothing is a very low bar. I think we can and should do better. The public deserves better. I have no doubt that people on both sides of this debate genuinely want to ensure people are protected from dangerous and toxic chemicals. I do not begrudge my colleagues who choose to support it. However, the Record must reflect that this bill is not without its flaws or its controversies. We must have a strong, national chemical program to protect American families and workers. But the States can and should be strong partners in this effort. This bill severely constrains the States' role in this effort. Ultimately, I am not convinced that the program that will be put into place by this bill justifies the unprecedented limitations of States' authorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, this week, we have seen a number of well- intentioned bills come to the floor with good ideas on how we can address the Nation's opioid epidemic that is sweeping our entire country. I was proud to lead one of those efforts with my good friend Representative Bucshon with a bill that endeavors to lift the cap on the number of patients a provider may treat with buprenorphine to 250, while expanding prescribing privileges to nurse practitioners and physician assistants. This is a good bill, and it would make a real, immediate difference for individuals facing months-long waiting lists for effective treatment, like the gentleman that I met last week when touring an addiction clinic in my district. He had struggled with addiction for decades and, after making the decision to try to get clean, was faced with a closed door and a 7-month waiting list due to outdated Federal rules that our bill would have fixed. Unfortunately, when this bill came to the floor, we were told the cap language had to be temporarily replaced with placeholder sense-of- Congress language until we go to conference because our bill was going to cost too much. Now, when we talk about the cost of this bill, what we are really talking about is the fact that more people will have access to effective treatment and more lives--more lives--will be saved. It is an unfortunate truth that, in the distorted budgetary terms of Washington, dead people cost less than the living. So we can talk all we want and we can pass all the bills we want, but unless we put our money where our mouth is, we will simply be peddling false hope. We will be condemning more of our brothers and sisters to the death spiral of addiction when we could have done something to help. A sense of Congress won't end months-long waiting lists for effective treatment. A sense of Congress won't get lifesaving overdose reversal drugs out to our first responders. If this Congress has any sense, as we move into conference committee, we will support this epidemic with the robust resources this country deserves for a real and meaningful response.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 4981, Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Expansion and Modernization Act, which I have had the honor of working on with my colleague and friend, Representative Larry Bucshon, in introducing. At the outset, I would like to thank Representative Bucshon and his staff, as well as the hard work of individuals on the committee staff, and our committee leaders, Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, to get this bill to this point. I would also like to praise my colleague and fellow New Yorker, Representative Brian Higgins, for his introduction and leadership on the TREAT Act, without which we would not be making this progress today. It is no hyperbole to announce that we are in a crisis when it comes to the opioid epidemic sweeping our Nation. More than 47,000 people have died of drug overdoses in 2014--family members, friends, and neighbors within that 47,000, for each and every one of us--a vast majority of which were opioid-related. It is a sign of the times that when you drive down the thruway in my district in upstate New York, instead of billboards advertising for McDonald's or Taco Bell, you see billboards advising to you call 911 in case of an opioid overdose. It is disturbing how quickly this has become the new normal. This crisis has affected our neighbors, our families, and our beloved communities. Having worked with the addiction recovery community, I know that one of the most important things we can do as policymakers is to ensure that when an individual struggling with addiction cries out for help, that there is someone there to answer the call. That is what this bill endeavors to do. Right now, treatment capacity for those seeking help for opioid use disorder in an office-based setting is artificially capped at 100 patients. What this means in reality is that if you are patient 101 or 102, you get a closed door and have to wait weeks, if not months, for treatment. Expectedly, these delays can be deadly. The legislation before us will support the goal of raising the caps for qualified physicians to 250, expanding existing opioid treatment capacity by some 150 percent, all while ensuring the care that individuals receive is high quality and minimizes the risk of diversion. In addition, this legislation will, for the first time, expand buprenorphine-prescribing authority to nurse practitioners and physician assistants who meet certain training requirements and comply with applicable State laws. By bringing these practitioners into the fold, we can expand treatment capacity, especially in rural areas where physicians oftentimes might be few and far between. Importantly, this bill expands access to high-quality addiction treatment, promoting the full range of psychosocial services that makes recovery possible, and providing HHS with new tools to remove bad actors from the system. Any Member interested in decreasing the unlawful diversion of buprenorphine should support this legislation. This legislation is not perfect, and I would still like to see a higher patient limit for the top class of physicians. In the midst of this crisis, ensuring access for all needs to be our utmost top priority. No matter where we ultimately land on this arbitrary number, we will still be closing the door on someone who needs our help. We would not accept this in any other field of medicine, so we all need to think long and hard about why we are allowing this situation to persist in the field of addiction. In addition, I would like to draw attention to two changes made to this bill before floor consideration. First, instead of statutorily lifting the DATA 2000 caps, this legislation includes a sense of Congress, if you will, that the caps should be lifted. Secondly, this legislation would time-limit the expansion of prescribing authority to nurse practitioners and physician assistants to some 3 years. Both of these temporary changes were made to bring the bill into compliance with PAYGO procedures for floor consideration and must be fixed as we move this bill into conference. I would just ask, Mr. Speaker, are we firm in our commitment to combat the addiction to heroin? Are we firm in our efforts to assist those who struggle with the illness of addiction? Do we stand for providing true hope to individuals who count on us to provide the resources along with the legislation to make life available to them? I would suggest that this House and the Senate look hard and fast at providing resources that are real and that provide for an effective outcome. If we fail to find a path forward for a meaningful expansion of the physician caps and certainly the nurse practitioners' and physician assistants' prescribing authority, then we are rationing care, pure and simple. The starting point for any conference discussion should be the bill as reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In any final legislation, we must include a statutory lifting of the DATA 2000 caps as well as full authority for our NPs and PAs. I would ask for the commitment of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in continuing to work toward these goals. Notwithstanding these issues, I believe it is critically important to keep up the momentum and to pass this bill. Even in its imperfect form, this bill will make a huge difference in the lives of those who struggle with this disease. If we cannot find a way to get a bill to the President's desk that will provide needed relief in the midst of this epidemic, shame on us. While this legislation is not a cure-all for the opioid epidemic, I believe the Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Expansion and Modernization Act will go far in helping to alleviate our acute treatment capacity issues and put more people on the path to recovery. I ask my colleagues in this House and down the hall in the Senate to support a bill--this bill--so that we can bring hope, truly bring hope into the lives of those individuals, those families, and those communities who grapple with this crisis on a daily basis.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, the idea of Earth Day began as a single day for the Nation to focus on environmental protection. Soon after the very first Earth Day in 1970, the phrase ``every day is Earth Day'' became a mantra among those who want to leave our planet in better shape than it was when we got here. On Earth Day 2016, I am proud to note that the landmark Paris Climate Agreement is scheduled to be signed by more than 150 nations, including the world's biggest polluters: China, Brazil, and the United States. The quickest, most direct way we are making every day Earth Day, this Friday, is by implementing the largest international agreement the world has ever known. Earth Day isn't just about the environment. It is about the people who inhabit it. It is about the air we breath, the water we drink, and the food we eat. The Paris Agreement is already working, setting the foundation for an historic reduction in greenhouse gases, and paving the way to a thriving, clean global economy. Here at home, it is also about creating new jobs and empowering the private sector to once again harness that uniquely American brand on innovation to lead the global marketplace. We may celebrate it once a year, but Earth Day truly is every day. That is a promise that is as important today as it was 46 years ago. And 46 years later, we are making Earth Day every day with the Paris Climate Agreement.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of our Committee on the Judiciary for yielding. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for bringing us together tonight so as to speak to what I think is a necessary cry, an outspoken cry to please fill the post on the Supreme Court. Madam Speaker, I am here this evening to join in spirit and voice with my colleagues who are urging, requesting our counterparts in the Senate, controlled by the Republican Party, to move forward on action taken by our President, as he nominated a gentleman by the name of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Their recalcitrance seems to strike a common theme of obstructionism. The Republican-led Congress has embodied obstructionism over the last several years. We see in public opinion surveys where that has reduced the positive side of the image of Congress simply because we don't do our work when it is required of us. Where else in this country in any other job can you say no when asked to do your job? That is what is happening here. Our Republican-controlled Senate is suggesting and indicating by their action that they will not move in fairness to address this nomination. My colleagues and I are not asking for a rubber stamp process here. We are asking simply that a fair hearing be given to the individual nominated by our President. President Obama has looked at qualifications, he has checked performance, he has looked at integrity, and he has named an individual that has received great reviews on both sides of the aisle in both Houses; but for some reason our colleagues in the other House--the Republicans of the Senate--will not allow for a fair hearing. That is saying no to your job. They embrace the Constitution, but seem to walk from it when it doesn't fit their agenda. What we have here again is obstructionism, perhaps of an historic dimension. This show of recalcitrance is regrettable and it is unacceptable. For the sake of argument, let me just share two numbers: 67 and 125. Sixty-seven days is the average length of time from nomination to confirmation for a Supreme Court nominee since 1975. Sixty-seven days. In terms of 127 days, that expresses the longest wait ever for a nominee from nomination to confirmation before that vote came. So 67 days and 125 days to make the case here. President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland on March 17, a full 311 days before his term expires on January 20 of next year. So the math here is very plain. It is a sound, solid argument: 67 on average, 125 at fullest length for the time span for doing business in the Senate when it comes to addressing the highest court in the land. They have had 311 days to do their work. People say: Well, the people need to decide. They want a President to be elected, come forth, and then address this vacancy. Well, the people did decide when they named President Obama by vote to a second term. America didn't elect President Obama for his second term to serve three-quarters of a term. They elected him for a full 4 years. So the arguments are weak, if they are even arguments. ``Do your job'' is the message that we share today on this House floor to the other House and to the Republican-controlled Senate. Do your job. There is much unfinished business in the highest court of the land. The Supreme Court has great unfinished business. To render that an eight-member body, where there can be deadlock and virtual paralysis in the highest court in the land, is unacceptable. Let's do the people's business. Let's fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, let's respect the Constitution, and let's understand that much time was available--is available--to get the work done here to confirm or to reject a nominee. Simply do your job and offer the gentleman a fair hearing.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on April 14, 2016, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On roll call numbers 145, 146, 148, and 149, I would have voted ``no.'' On roll call number 147, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, again, I just would thank all who have been involved with the effort here--from my perspective, particularly Representative Collins, Dr. Bucshon, Representative Welch, and others who put together, I think, a good effort here to have a bipartisan, collaborative effort that speaks to sensitivity, speaks to compassion toward the patients, those requiring the access to health care, and certainly has great respect for the taxpayer and the ensuing outcomes. With that, I would encourage my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. This amendment provides a new bill name that incorporates the underlying policies from each of its component bills and reflects additional technical changes that have been outlined by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), made in consultation with CMS. This is a very targeted policy that went through extensive review through regular order in the committee. The manager's amendment reflects the final iteration of that hard work. I would urge all my colleagues to support this simple refining amendment.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the standing Committee on Energy and Commerce, who has shown great leadership for the Democrats at the Energy and Commerce table. He is very much supportive of this effort here, and we thank him for that.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. TONKO. As I earlier mentioned in my comments, one of the key participants in putting this effort together was Representative Welch from the State of Vermont. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a good friend and a fellow Energy and Commerce Committee member.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am here to express my strong support for the Ensuring Access to Quality Medicaid Providers Act. In particular, I am pleased that this legislation incorporates the Medicaid Directory of Caregivers Act, also known as the Medicaid DOC Act. This is legislation in which I joined with my colleague and friend from New York, Representative Collins, in introducing. I thank Representative Collins for his initiative in this area and for working together on this issue in a collaborative and bipartisan way. I also thank the Energy and Commerce Committee staffs on both sides for providing constructive feedback and for expeditiously moving this bill out of committee. The impetus behind this bill is simple and straightforward: to make it easier for Medicaid beneficiaries to find and access a doctor. The underlying legislation would require States that operate a fee- for-service Medicaid program to publish an online provider directory, just like managed care plans and private insurance are already required to do. By creating a one-stop-shop for Medicaid beneficiaries to find information on participating providers, this commonsense legislation will make it easier for individuals and families to access quality health care. The legislation details the minimum items that must be included in a provider directory, but it also allows States to go beyond those given standards. All consumers deserve to have access to a basic electronic provider directory to find the best physicians for their use. The second component of the legislation under consideration would provide the CMS with critical tools to keep patients safe, to protect taxpayer dollars, and to protect the integrity of our Medicaid program. This bipartisan bill, introduced by Representatives Bucshon, Welch, and Butterfield, implements previous OIG recommendations and builds on authorities originally authorized under the ACA. The ACA included a provision that prohibited disqualified providers from Medicare or a one State Medicaid program from simply crossing State lines and receiving payments in another State Medicaid program. The ACA provision has been hard to implement, however, because States don't have a consistent or a standardized way of knowing when a specific provider has been terminated by Medicare or by another State. All States are not currently required to report this information, and if it is reported, it is in many differing formats, limiting the data's usability. This legislation would require all States to report information on fraudulent providers to the Secretary for inclusion in a currently existing termination database that is accessible to all States. The legislation also requires the Secretary to develop uniform criteria for States to use when submitting information. The language would also require all providers in managed care to enroll with State Medicaid agencies so that States know all providers that are participating in the program. This legislation preserves all existing provider appeals processes, and it changes nothing regarding the underlying standard for fraud in this part of the program. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support this bipartisan legislation, which makes Medicaid more consumer-friendly and strengthens program integrity. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence). She is another member of the Michigan delegation. Representative Brenda Lawrence has shown great leadership in her role on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and, again, has been a passionate voice to address the families of Flint.

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, let me again offer my appreciation to Chairman Upton and our ranking member, Representative Pallone, for their leadership on this and for working in a spirit of bipartisanship to bring this measure to the floor and in working with the Michigan delegation and, in particular, Representative Kildee, who has been directly impacted on behalf of Flint, Michigan, which he represents. I would also make certain that we remember that under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as Representative Kildee indicated, States have primacy, an important issue for Members who frequently talked about empowering our State and local governments. It is a State's responsibility when they accept that role of primacy to run these systems and comply with Federal standards. Before we point fingers at the EPA, let's remember that Congress has cut its budget year after year. We want them to do more with less. We have passed the point of achieving efficiency, we have cut valuable staffing, and we have cut valuable programs. We can point to failures by all levels of government in this situation, but the public doesn't want to hear us blame anyone. They want and deserve real solutions and financial assistance to address the crisis at hand. We need to help the people of Flint and better protect our public health going forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of H.R. 4470, the Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act, introduced last week by our colleague Representative Kildee, with the support of other members of the Michigan delegation. This bill would strengthen requirements to have the EPA notify the public when concentrations of lead exceed Federal standards. That is notifying the public. While I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it, far more than this is needed to address the many failings that led to the tragic circumstances that are still being experienced by the residents of Flint, Michigan, a situation that has drawn the Nation's attention and drawn compassion for children and their families. This should never have occurred in any city in our Nation. As with any such tragic failure, there is an attempt to assess blame. Well, accountability is important. Those who failed in their responsibility should be held accountable. But no one here has yet taken responsibility for our part, Congress' part, in this event. Collectively, this Congress as well as many previous Congresses have failed to maintain Federal support for the maintenance and improvements of our water infrastructure. We have been underfunding these systems for decades. The poor condition of the water treatment and distribution system in Flint set the stage for this tragedy. We are doing this in an attempt to save money. Well, in fact, we are wasting many millions of dollars more by allowing essential infrastructure to deteriorate to the extent where a constant stream of emergency responses and repairs are required to keep these systems working. Finally, we need to do something for the people of Flint. The State of Michigan and President Obama's administration have both begun to mobilize resources to deal with the immediate need for safe drinking water, and they are working to eliminate lead from the water distribution system. But we still don't know if essential corrosion control can be reestablished. And bottled water does not solve Flint's problems. The residents of Flint need a fully functioning public water system that delivers safe, clean water to their homes, to their schools, and to their businesses. We need to work with the State of Michigan to make that happen. We need to care for the people who were exposed to lead, especially our children, who are most vulnerable to lead exposure. They need treatment and sustained assistance to deal with the health problems they may experience as a result of this manmade disaster. The conditions that enabled this crisis to happen are not unique to Flint. And while this bill is a first step to help communities that may face these problems in the future, it cannot be our last step. We must embrace our responsibility to support Federal investment in drinking water systems. The public health and future prosperity of the people of Flint and thousands of other communities across our great Nation are continuing to suffer from the concerns and are counting on our progressive actions. I look forward to continuing this discussion. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has carried the concern and the emotion of this situation as the Representative in the House of Flint, Michigan. His energetic efforts, his determination, his obvious passion for getting this done, getting some relief, the relief essential for Flint done, is tremendously moving.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for another individual to offer testimony. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time remains?

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Chair, I oppose this bill, which represents an effort by politicians to overrule expert scientists in deciding which scientific grants the NSF should fund. In defense of their misguided effort, some of my colleagues like to pick a grant and poke fun at it or trivialize it or simply state that, in their opinion, it is not worth funding. One of the grants that has been singled out is entitled Participant Support for the Zero Emissions Category of the Clean Snowmobile Challenge. Snowmobiles are ideal modes of transportation in extreme polar locations. This grant funded the Clean Snowmobile Challenge in which students formed teams to engineer a lower emissions snowmobile. Engineering competitions are both an important proving ground for new technologies and an incredible opportunity for students to engage in real-world engineering challenges. My colleagues frequently talk up the importance of STEM competitions. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has held entire full committee hearings on that very topic. Now some of my same colleagues would ridicule an engineering competition just because it might have a climate change benefit. I hope all of my colleagues here today agree with me that encouraging and, certainly, promoting our next generation of engineers is definitely in the national interest, even when it results in less pollution. This grant, singled out for ridicule by some in the majority, is just another example of why we should be concerned about the intent of this legislation. I would also like to point out that I strongly believe that the current gold standard merit-review process works and that we should not be politicizing science. The sheer number of amendments to this legislation demonstrates the flawed methodology of trying to define which research is in the national interest. I think all of the Members who offered amendments to this section would agree that important priorities have been left out. Personally, I believe we have unacceptably overlooked clean drinking water and climate change. I offered an amendment with Congressman Kildee that would expand the priority of advancement of health and welfare to include clean drinking water explicitly. Unfortunately, this amendment was not made in order. As we have seen in the news recently out of Flint, Michigan, we have taken our drinking water infrastructure for granted for decades. This neglect and lack of investment has caused serious public health issues. We need to invest more, but we should not invest in a 20th or, in some cases, in a 19th century drinking water system. A 21st century economy requires a 21st century infrastructure, but that cannot happen unless it is coupled with the critical research that will help us improve the construction, the operation, and the maintenance of our water systems. Our Nation's future public health and economic development are counting on it. Clean drinking water is one of many important priorities not listed in this legislation. However, beyond missing important priorities, I am concerned that this legislation will limit critical research. The exciting part of research is that, at the start, we do not know what we will find; so, we cannot accurately predict ahead of time all of the implications the research will have on specific national priorities. Instead, we should invest and encourage high-risk, high- reward research. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.