Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Exactly. Can you ill afford any waste of water? But it is not just water coming through those pipes. It is tax dollars flowing with that water. It is treated water. So it is foolish for us to continue along this path of hidden infrastructure mentality because, when it is not addressed, water and tax dollars--hard-earned constituent money--are flowing out of those pipes. Before I came here, Representative Garamendi, you know that I worked at NYSERDA, the New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority. We got national awards for energy efficiency incorporated at water treatment facilities. So we took that effort to reduce the price tag of day-to-day operational costs. There are ways to save money. A broken pipe is pouring money down the drain. So let's stop that foolish expenditure and go wisely to the investment that enables us with our intellect, our passion, and our sense of virtue to get things done correctly. Generations before us had that vision. Pioneers built this country. People came here as immigrants and tethered their American Dream. They climbed the ladder of opportunity and built strong communities based on that American Dream, and we in our present moment can't find it within ourselves to address those basic core needs? We pride ourselves on being a modern society and having the luxury of clean water. The blue infrastructure moment is now. Let's invest in that clean water infrastructure. Let's not torture our communities. Let's not disrespect our children. We are better than that. We have the engineering savvy. We have the academic prowess. We have the intellectual capacity. Now do we have the will? I believe we do. I believe this country, if asked: ``Do you want to invest in America's drinking water systems?'' would say a resounding yes. Flint, Michigan; Sebring, Ohio; Los Angeles, California; Troy, New York--the list goes on and on. If we do nothing, we should anticipate that this list will continue to make a growing, passionate statement that we are dragging our feet. We are allowing a hidden infrastructure to be truly that, hidden, out of sight and out of mind. Don't burden us with the responsibility. Don't share the facts. It is too painful. I don't want to hear that it is going to cost us something. We see what the cost is. Representative Garamendi held up the photo of that polluted water, that poisonous water. That is unacceptable in a country as great as America. Unacceptable. We have invested in the soundness of education, research, and innovation, and to not utilize the byproducts of those investments is sheer foolishness. It is not exercising the love of country that needs to be engaged in this Chamber and across the country. We can get this done. I am a firm believer--firm believer--that, with voices resonating in chorus about this issue and the connected tragedies of disinvestment, we will get it done. We will get it done. Representative Garamendi, I appreciate the efforts you make to bring these issues to the attention of the American public. For those who listen at home and watch at home, encourage your representatives to get on board with the investment in our clean drinking water infrastructure. It is so critical. This moment can bring us together. This isn't about a partisan issue. We didn't ask those children what party their families may be assigned, have chosen. This serves us all. Let's go forward united in the voice and the passion to get it done, the determination and the integrity to say that we had a challenge and, in the old American way, we responded to it and succeeded. Again, thank you for bringing us together.

Mr. TONKO. When it comes to smart, incorporating this work with the appropriate agencies--the EPA and the DEC in my home State of New York--there is a situation very close to my district in Hoosick Falls that is going through a similar contaminated water situation critical to their quality of life and their public health. We need to advance that partnership, that soundness of checks and balances, that will make certain that every bit of the way it is based on responsibility and professionalism and good faith efforts.

Mr. TONKO. I thank the speaker for the opportunity to share thoughts on the floor here this evening. Blue infrastructure, let's get it done. Let's provide America one of her core basic needs.

Mr. TONKO. And frightening.

Mr. TONKO. Think of the reduction in the quality of life there. We commend Representative Kildee, Representative Lawrence, and all of the members of the Michigan delegation for the work that they have done. Again, to the price tag, the cost, let's look at the other side. Earlier I talked about 7 billion--7 billion--gallons of water lost with these main breaks, with these breaks of any kind. 7 billion gallons.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for leading us in what is a very important bit of discussion. In a broad term, infrastructure is something that needs our immediate attention because of years of neglect, but it comes to that water infrastructure that has been highlighted of late. I like to call it the hidden infrastructure. It can't be out of sight, out of mind. That would be a very painful outcome if that is the approach that is taken by certainly us as legislators or by society at large. You are right: for a number of years, we have been discussing infrastructure. I have made it my goal to invest in water infrastructure for a number of reasons, but also because of my assignment on the Energy and Commerce Committee as ranking--the lead Democrat--on the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, which reports to the Energy and Commerce Committee. It is through that subcommittee that the assignment of the Safe Drinking Water Act is housed. So it is important for us to maintain a vigilance, if you will, for the outcomes that are deemed acceptable--and that is that we do not receive a D on our report card for water infrastructure. When you shared that information, Representative Garamendi, I thought to myself that if any of us brought home a D on a report card, there would be a little bit of a challenge offered our way to improve that report card with the next semester. So, I believe that we have failed in this effort to maintain a strong Federal partnership. There has been a lot of finger pointing going on since the Flint, Michigan, issue arose in the public's awareness as a national issue. That finger pointing won't solve anything. But if we are going to finger point, we need to also internalize that. We need to look at Congress and what it has done. When you talked about the levels of funding, in the early seventies, I came onto my county board in 1976, in Montgomery County in upstate New York. I can vividly recall that we had a very lucrative revenue flow from the Federal Government for our water systems. Today, what we look at is something like a 4 percent investment coming from the Federal Government on the total bill. That is grossly inadequate. The fact that we can turn our backs on this infrastructure and allow situations like Flint, Michigan; Sebring, Ohio; Troy, New York; or Los Angeles, California, to grip us, to shock our senses and not respond, leaves us in a very pitiful state, I believe. We need to do better than that. We need to form a plan of action. That plan of action must include a stronger investment in the water infrastructure of this country. Now, some of that also requires, I think, an enhancement of the investment made in the drinking water SRF, or the State Revolving Fund. That fund has not been reauthorized since 2003. So we need to go forward and reauthorize and enhance the SRF so that our States, as partners with the Federal Government, can then go forward and have some relief in responding to the strapped cities that are really impacted by a declining tax base, in many cases, and the very small bit of population in some of our rural communities that are trying to maintain systems that want to speak to public health and public safety and to offer a commodity that is not only important, but essential. It is essential for the quality of life in our homes, it is essential for small businesses, it is essential for our manufacturing base, it is essential for our farming community. All of this requires water. Many suggest that we are transitioning from an oil-based economy to a water- based economy. So, if we are anticipating greater use and reliance on water as a commodity, let's put our act into working order. That means that you invest not like we did last year, where the outcome was at some $843 million, which was some $43 million worth of a cut. That is completely going in the wrong direction. That is not listening to the needs of local government or to the basic, core essential need of sound drinking water, clean drinking water. It is blue infrastructure. That is what we need to invest in--making certain that we have an abundance and an essential supply of clean drinking water. It is absolutely mandatory in a modern economy. If we are going to compete effectively in an innovation economy, we need to provide the essentials, including water, to the business, residential, and ag community. When I look at some of the neglect, it is so interesting to see that we wait for crises like that of Flint. Does Flint require Federal investment? Absolutely. I stand ready and willing to assist Flint. I would rank what happened there as immoral. So, we need to move forward and assist Flint, but the saga shouldn't begin and end there. We need to create a national response that empowers our communities across the country. We need to have interaction and dialogue at the table to best understand where we have fallen down, where we have failed. We need to have officials from Flint, Michigan, and from the State of Michigan here to testify. I don't think it is appropriate for Governor Snyder of that State to walk away from that invitation. It is important for us to go forward with the sort of communication, the dialogue, that will build the soundest response. And if we do not respond out of necessity to Flint, Michigan; Troy, New York, Sebring, Ohio; and Los Angeles, and the list continues to grow, we will then just see these issues keep rising in our communities. When I last saw Troy, New York's dilemma, they were repairing things in the worst weather--conditions that were near zero, where they needed to heat the site in order to weld the materials that were completing the project. A major line, Representative Garamendi, broke. It was their main line. A 33-inch pipe was shooting water 100 feet into the air. Ten million gallons of water went into the street. Are we going to sit back and say that is acceptable in a Nation like this--a Nation of abundance--that considers itself a world leader? No world-leading nation can ignore its infrastructure like we have ignored the water infrastructure. Blue infrastructure is what we should be about: providing that clean drinking water. We have nearly a quarter of a million breaks annually in the systems from coast-to-coast. A quarter of a million. There are 700-some breaks per day. Think about it. That wouldn't be acceptable to an ordinary business plan of any type. It should not be acceptable to the Federal Government plan in assisting communities with the sound commodity of drinking water. So, Representative Garamendi, I am just thrilled to join you this evening to continue to carry the message forward that we need action, we need a plan of action, we need commitment, and we need resources. It begins now. Every missed opportunity here will perhaps cause the opportunity for yet another tragedy in a community that just should not happen. Again, it is about investing soundly, effectively, and appropriately, in what it is an essential commodity: water for our communities.

Mr. TONKO. Lead pipes. The $863 million in the Drinking Water SRF of which I spoke is a lot of money. But when you put it into context of maybe 10 million lead service lines in the country, when you think of infrastructure that is beyond 100 years old--when I did tours--I have been doing tours in my district of the water systems, and I have found systems as old as 145 years. That is when Rutherford B. Hayes was in the White House. And I saw pipes that were 8-inch in diameter reduced to 4-inch flow because of calcification. I saw pipes removed because of corrosion by the acidity of soils that has taken its toll. You think of new technology, invention, innovation, gauges that can be utilized, liners that can be put in certain pipes for extending the useful life, things that we can be doing that provide for preventative maintenance and speak to public health and public safety. You know, it is a bit of wonderment, isn't it, that we will trade our cell phones every other year, or perhaps every year, because they have got a new product on the shelf; or will trade in our screens, our TV screens, because they are simply not big enough; or the car has got too many miles or we just came to dislike the color, and so we trade in the automobile every three, 4 years. But we are content to live with water pipes for 145 years. It defies human logic. Why do we accept that? Why don't we dig into this hidden infrastructure and invest in a way that will avoid thousands of families being impacted by contamination of lead? Children, innocent children impacted by societal neglect. Investment that ought to be highest priority, not put on the back burner. Well, the response, as we know, is: How are you going to pay for it? What is the cost? What is the cost of doing something? Let's contrast that with the cost of not doing something. What are the bills going to be? For Flint, Michigan, alone, we don't think people are going to stay silent with this tragedy in their lives. What is the impact to industry? When I saw these lines burst in the city of Troy, New York, this winter, businesses were shut down. Schools were shut. They were closed for days. Families didn't have water in their homes. What is the cost? What is the price tag? So it needs to be a framework that is large enough to calculate the human impact, the financial impact, societal impact, the economic consequences. These are real. Again, we are a country, a people that can claim the pioneer spirit within our DNA. How do we dare say ``no'' to what ought to be a sound investment, to grow jobs, maintain jobs, to compete effectively on a global scale in an innovation economy? We can do better. We must do better. And when we look at the situations out there where we have convinced ourselves that we are not worthy of investment, that is not leadership. We are trying to stall and pass it on to the next generation. Well, this generation that will be that next generation of leaders is being impacted healthwise as we speak. Unacceptable. Immoral. We can do better. Representative Garamendi, I know there are voices that really want to produce here and do this progressive bit of investment that will strengthen our communities.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, when we talk about the infrastructure hidden beneath the surface of the streets and scape of our communities, it is hard to imagine wooden pipes along with those decrepit 145-year-old pipes in calcification galore. The enormity of the situation needs to be perhaps graphically shared. Under the city of Albany, the capital of New York, which is part of the 20th Congressional District that I represent, happens to lie 317 miles of pipe, drinking water infrastructure. You could travel from Albany, New York, to Baltimore, Maryland. That is the sort of linear responsibility associated with that system. Should we anticipate rightfully that there may be some bumps along the road of that 317-mile stretch in any given year?

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. So let's think of it in those sorts of terms so that we can have a better understanding and awareness of an aged infrastructure, which, by the way, is also accompanied by a discontinued inventory in many cases. Valves that are required are no longer manufactured. So we have to come up with some innovative response when there is a break. While we have talked a lot about capital improvements, capital infrastructure, and physical infrastructure that is required to pay for and build back these systems, there is also that third leg of the stool: human infrastructure. When I tour these water systems in my district, one of the learning curves is the declining effort of professionals--not their effort--the declining numbers of professionals who have the awesome responsibility of operating and maintaining these systems. So the education, the training, the retraining, the higher education, and the certification of individuals who makes these systems work and provide for that water when you turn on the tap, they are there. But there is an aging out because I think we have ignored this. So career paths have not been developed in the minds of students to go into this sort of science. And it is an important, awesome responsibility. Will that institutional knowledge be passed on or will we just go without? So the human infrastructure is an important piece of this puzzle, also, to have the qualified women and men conducting their professionalism to serve the community. So when you turn that tap on and anticipate--rightfully again--that clean drinking water is the result, think of all the decisionmaking, think of all the investment, think of the stewardship, and the operating know-how that is required. It is awesome. It is also a system, as we have been shown, that, when there is failure, you can have a large number of people impacted and in severe measure. So I believe that this Nation cares about its drinking water capacity and state of purity and sound condition. They want that abundant supply of clean water, and we need stronger partnership from the Federal level being more committed, more lucrative funding streams to the States, and then the States incorporating with their local communities to come up with innovative concepts. My gosh, we are producing new materials that perhaps won't corrode as easily or that can retrofit the given systems. We have gauges that can tell us where the next break may come. So you are dealing with the know-how that provides for the most effective and efficient outcome from a taxpayer perspective. All of this technology with software to accompany it is available. But, again, the technical assistance, the grants, the loans--affordable loans--that we can advance to the communities are important steps in the process of providing for a 21st-century infrastructure. We shouldn't be content with a D on our report card. D means devastating. D means dangerous. D means in decline. Let's move forward and advance for that A on the report card. I know you wanted those As on your report card, Mr. Garamendi. I wanted them on mine.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman from New Hampshire, our colleagues who have made available this Special Order this evening through the auspices of the Bipartisan Task Force to Combat the Heroin Epidemic. As co-chair of a similar panel, the bipartisan caucus that addresses the disease of addiction, it is important, I believe, to share information and encourage response out there from the general public to drive the policy process here in Washington. According to SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the use of heroin has almost tripled in the past 8 years, going from 161,000 in 2007 to some 435,000 in 2014. Much of what is fueling this epidemic has been the proliferation of stronger and stronger prescription drug painkillers. Many individuals first get addicted to these prescription drugs and then turn to heroin as a cheaper alternative. One in 15 people who take prescription pain relievers for a nonmedical use will try heroin within 10 years. These statistics are sobering and require a degree of response, an ultimate response, with great emergency. I have seen these issues firsthand in my district, and all of my colleagues are acknowledging here that it is beyond the Northeast. It is penetrating our Nation. While there has been increased congressional interest in these crises, not enough is being done to effectively end the epidemic. First, we need to increase funding for the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant. This funding stream represents the cornerstone of our States' response, their substance abuse prevention, their treatment and recovery systems. Unfortunately, funding has not kept up with inflation over the past decade and adjusted for inflation, so we are actually funding the block grant program at a level that is some 25 percent less than we were in 2006. Contrasted to the stats that I shared on the growth of this epidemic, it is simple. It is immoral that we are not doing more. In addition, we need to make certain that we are increasing access to effective, evidence-based treatments. One way we could do this is to raise the DATA 2000 caps that limit the number of patients that a doctor can treat with buprenorphine, which is a medication-assisted treatment for opioid abuse. There are many doctors who have months-long, if not years-long, waiting lists of patients seeking help with their addictions, yet they cannot get in the door for treatment due to this arbitrary cap. I was proud to join with my colleague from upstate New York, Representative Higgins, in introducing the TREAT Act to address the issue of prescriber caps, and I hope to continue to work with interested Members on both sides of the aisle to address the issue of access to treatment. Again, I thank my colleagues for bringing attention to this critical epidemic here this evening. Let's get the people's business done.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I ask, why are we not addressing gun violence? People who aren't allowed to fly because they are suspected of terrorism should not be allowed to purchase firearms. I can't believe that in 2015 this is a problem that needs fixing. Democrats have tried three times over to open debate on a bill--a bill, by the way, authored by a Republican that would block people on the no- fly list from walking out of a gun shop with their firearm of choice-- and three times, the Republican House majority has blocked that opportunity. Ninety-one percent of the time, suspected terrorists pass a background check because the system we have in place does not check to see if a potential buyer is on the no-fly list. This is absolutely unacceptable. I ask the leadership in this House to immediately bring to the floor Republican Congressman Peter King's bill to close the loophole that allows suspected terrorists to buy guns. And if they won't, I call upon my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to sign the discharge petition, a petition currently before the House to force a vote on this bill. We must allow the House to work the will of the people instead of those in Congress who are more concerned with losing their ``A'' rating with the NRA than keeping Americans safe. Let us address gun violence. Bring the bill to the floor.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, certainly the numbers here speak to the most vulnerable in our society. There are waiting lists that I know exist in States. There are more things we can do for energy efficiency's sake for our most stressed family budgets. This is a situation where energy costs, as a wedge of the pie for our poor families for their household budgets, is far greater a slice than it is for the average residents of this country. This is a hardhearted approach taken to our elderly, to our low-income families, and to the disabled. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that our goal here should be to be as resourceful as possible with our energy mix across this country. Anytime we can reduce consumption we are doing a big thing for all ratepayers. The statements show a missing of the focus that is needed. Finally, to the study, it was a one-State, one-utility study. It was not peer reviewed. It was flawed. It did not really suggest to show the real issues out there for this program. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment reauthorizes two existing programs, the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. Both of these programs have been operating successfully for many years. The Federal dollars delivered through these programs leverage additional funding from our States and the private sector. These programs address real problems. They are effective, and they create and sustain jobs. As we heard during debate yesterday, H.R. 8 does very little to advance energy efficiency, an issue that has enjoyed strong, bipartisan support in the past. In fact, some provisions are more likely to be a setback to efficiency standards. While this bill contains plenty of benefits for energy suppliers, there is very little in there designed to address the needs of average Americans. The Weatherization Assistance Program supports State-based programs to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of low-income families. The Department of Energy provides grants to the States, United States territories, and tribal governments to deliver these services through local weatherization agencies. The weatherization measures used include air sealing, wall and attic insulation, duct sealing, and furnace repair and replacement. Mr. Chairman, the benefits of weatherization are well known and result in a reduced energy bill for many years into the future. Insulating our walls and our roofs, for example, can provide savings for the lifetime of a house. Other measures, such as making heating or cooling equipment more efficient, can provide savings for more than a decade. Since 1976, the Weatherization Assistance Program has helped improve the lives of more than 7 million families by reducing their electricity bills. The program provides energy efficiency services to thousands of homes every year, reducing average costs by more than $400 per household in annual utility bills. Investments in energy efficiency pay for themselves over time, but the up-front costs can be significant, and when a family's budget is severely limited, those costs are simply too high. The Weatherization Assistance Program helps those in our communities who do not have the financial resources to make energy efficiency investments on their own. That includes our elderly, our disabled, and our low-income families. These vulnerable households are often on fixed incomes and are the most susceptible to volatile changes in electricity prices. They are particularly vulnerable to spikes in electricity bills during heat waves or cold weather due to poor insulation or inefficient appliances. A sudden increase in expenses is difficult to manage for many of our families. Low-income families already spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy costs. Mr. Chairman, the State Energy Program provides funding to the States to support the work of their energy offices. It ensures that each State will have basic funding available to support its programs. These offices play a role in helping States define the least costly ways to meet State goals for energy efficiency, for air quality, for fuel diversity, and for energy security. According to a study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the State Energy Program often leverages, for every 1 Federal dollar, $10.71 in State and private funds. That is a great return on investment. Congress reauthorized these programs back in 2007 for a 5-year period at about $1 billion per year for Weatherization and $125 million per year for the State Energy Program. My amendment authorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program for another 5 years, but at lower levels--$450 million per year--and the State Energy Program is authorized for 5 years at $75 million per year. These are robust authorization levels for certain. While I believe these programs should be appropriated even more funding, this amendment authorizes them at lower levels to be more in tune with today's fiscal constraints. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment and to help to extend the benefits of energy efficiency to our families so that more families can be supported by local jobs, businesses, and certainly contractors that do this extremely important work. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply strikes section 1101 of the underlying bill. The section is a solution in search of a problem. The section's purported goal is to reinforce the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's role as the lead agency for siting interstate natural gas pipelines; however, I do not think there is any doubt over FERC's role in pipeline siting approval. In reality, this section is designed to further expedite permitting for natural gas pipelines. But there is very little evidence that this process needs expediting, which ultimately would restrict States and other Federal agencies' ability to review projects and the public's ability to comment on them. Mr. Chairman, the GAO looked at the approval process for pipelines by FERC and found 95 percent are approved within 2 years. When it takes longer, it is because the project is large or controversial due to taking of private property, traversing State or Federal land, or requiring placement of compression stations and other operation equipment in an area close to existing infrastructure or communities. Even the industry agrees that pipeline approvals are happening. In October, Pipelines Digest, an industry publication, wrote: Through April 30 of this year, FERC certified and placed in service almost twice as many natural gas projects and more than doubled the miles of pipeline that were put in service and certified through the same date in 2014. We are building new pipelines. There is no problem that needs fixing. So what evidence is there that the certification process needs to be further tilted in favor of pipeline companies at the expense of environmental review and public comment? I would say there isn't any. Yet, Mr. Chairman, this section would require FERC to decide on a pipeline application within 90 days after the Commission issues its final environmental document, regardless of the complexity of the application. It would also allow FERC to consider environmental data collected by aerial or other remote surveys instead of onsite inspections. This would enable pipeline companies to circumvent property owners' rights when surveying land, all in hopes of speeding up projects. The siting of natural gas pipelines is complicated and can be controversial. I know this well since there are a number of projects currently being developed in or near the district I represent. I hear from my constituents about these projects regularly. They are very concerned, and they feel like they are being left out of this process. They are concerned about the safety and about the noise, air, and water pollution from the construction and operation of the pipeline's associated facilities. The pipeline companies do not have a problem. The public does. We know that these types of projects, no matter how beneficial to the public interest, can be controversial. Someone is always unhappy about the selected route or placement of these facilities. But we need to do a better job of bringing the public along, and these provisions do the opposite. Mr. Chairman, the public has a right to be part of large projects that impact their communities. Does that take extra time? Yes. Is it less convenient for the company? Yes. But these pipelines will be in service for many decades. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right. So I see no reason why we should be expediting projects if we cannot be sure they can be built in a safe and environmentally friendly manner. We need to ensure State and Federal regulators are given the time needed to carefully review applications for the construction of natural gas pipelines and to ensure that the landowners and the general public have the ability to participate meaningfully in the siting process. This section undermines that process. I urge support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Watson Coleman) for a brief statement.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for our colleague from Kentucky. However, when he talks about being in disagreement with the President of the United States, I should point out also that he is in disagreement with 97 percent of the scientist community that professes that we need to do something tremendously strong in response to climate change. In regard to our role in this whole arena, putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage, one of the responsibilities that befalls the leading nation like the United States is that, in fact, we must be that inspiration that inspires the international community. We have been able to bring some 150 countries to the fold to speak to their efforts of climate change, and we have inspired efforts from major nations like that of China, Brazil, and Mexico so as to begin that process. When I met in my office with representatives from the EU--I think there were 13 nations represented--they all wanted to know where the giant was on this issue. The world is looking to the United States for its leadership, and that is a role that we should not take lightly, and it is one that we should move forward with in bold fashion. With that being said, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), who has been an outstanding voice on the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). She serves as a member of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy. She is an outspoken voice for defending the environment and calling for our sound stewardship of the environment.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and, more important to this discussion, an outstanding, passionate voice concerning climate change and carbon emission. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)