Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 23, legislation that reauthorizes the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, or NWIRP. America faces significant exposure to windstorms. We saw that, indeed, in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy devastated parts of the Northeast. Superstorm Sandy was responsible for over 200 deaths and caused over $70 billion in damage. According to the National Weather Service, from 2005 to 2014, thousands of Americans lost their lives from the impacts of windstorms. Along with the loss of life, windstorms caused many billions of dollars in property and crop damage during that time. When windstorms occur, we must work to save lives and reduce the amount of property and crop damage that the windstorm or other natural disaster causes. We already are investing significant resources after a windstorm, but we should be investing more in preparedness. FEMA's predisaster mitigation program has demonstrated that every dollar invested in mitigation activities saves $3 to $4 in recovery costs. The National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization of 2015 is largely a mitigation program. The bill reauthorizes the NWIRP program that directs NIST, NSF, NOAA, and FEMA to support coordinated activities to improve our understanding of windstorms and their impacts and to develop cost-effective mitigation measures. This program has the potential to lessen the loss of life and economic damage of windstorms by supporting research and helping to translate that research into more effective building codes and mitigation programs, but this program needs robust investment to achieve that result. Unfortunately, this bill includes a lower total authorization level than was authorized for this program in fiscal year 2008. We have the responsibility, I believe, to assist our constituents after a natural disaster occurs, but we also have the responsibility to properly support mitigation programs that could reduce the loss of life and property damage caused by the next natural disaster. Nevertheless, this is an important program that needs reauthorization, and I, today, support its passage. I want to thank the members of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, including Chair Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and Representative Neugebauer, for their hard work on this bill. I want to thank the members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee for their hard work as well. It is nice to see my colleagues here in the House of Representatives and over in the Senate working in a bipartisan, bicameral manner to bring this bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, Pope Francis will address this body in a joint session this month, and I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle when I say I am eager to receive the Holy Father's message of peace as a reminder of where our priorities should be in our work here in the House. As the Pope explained earlier this year in an encyclical, becoming a better steward of our environment should be a priority for all of us. The leader of the Catholic Church accurately points out that it is a moral imperative to care for others and the gifts we have been given by addressing climate change, and addressing it now. It is time to work together to better protect our environment and build a culture of stewardship. I thank Pope Francis for his focus on this issue, and I hope the words he will share in 2 weeks ring true with all of us, including those who continue to deny climate change, both in this body and around the world. For having the wisdom to change one's mind and evolve in thought is a blessing. I hope the Pope's encyclical will encourage deniers to work with us to find creative ways to clean up our environment, help create jobs, and make our world just a little bit better and more peaceful for our kids and our grandkids.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, this agreement is the best option available to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The alternatives are simply too risky and too costly, which is why the deal's opponents have failed to articulate a realistic alternative. During my time in Congress, I have voted for every bill that imposed crippling sanctions on Iran, which brought the regime to the negotiating table and united the world to stop Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Sanctions were meant to be a tool to ensure negotiations; that is exactly what they have done, but as we have learned from the past decade, sanctions alone are not enough to stop Iran from expanding its nuclear program. Before negotiations began, Iran greatly increased its enrichment stockpile and centrifuge capacity, despite sanctions. That is why a verifiable agreement that will cut off Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon is necessary. The International Atomic Energy Agency will have nearly continuous access to Iran's declared nuclear facilities and can gain unprecedented access to other suspicious, undeclared sites in as little as 24 hours. Under this agreement, Iran will dismantle two-thirds of its installed centrifuges, remove over 97 percent of its uranium stockpile, and make changes to its Arak plutonium reactor before it receives sanctions relief. United States Department of Energy Secretary and nuclear physicist Ernest Moniz has confirmed that the agreement increases Iran's breakout time significantly for well over a decade, from 2 to 3 months today to at least 12 months moving forward. This additional time will give us ample opportunity to catch and stop Iran should it choose to pursue a nuclear weapon. Some have suggested that we need to reject this deal in order to get a better one, but I have found no evidence to believe that a better deal is possible. It is clear that some of our negotiating partners and other allies do not want more sanctions. If we reject this deal, the robust international sanctions regime would certainly erode, if not unravel entirely. In the meantime, Iran could move forward with its enrichment program without inspections; limitations on manufacturing, installation, research, and development of new centrifuges; and constraints on its enriched uranium stockpile. Simply put, no deal would mean no inspections and no constraints on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Some have suggested that we cannot make an agreement with a country that we do not trust, but we must remember that this deal is not based on trust, but rather the most intrusive inspections regime upon which we have ever agreed. We did not trust the Soviet Union, especially when we negotiated an arms reduction treaty with them as we fought in devastating proxy wars around the world. Today we are not debating whether to trust Iran. We are debating whether and how we should enhance monitoring of its nuclear program. I remain committed to working with the administration and my colleagues here in Congress to contain Iran's conventional capabilities that threaten stability in the region and throughout the world, but know that this deal is the best option to take the nuclear issue out of the equation. I urge my colleagues to approve this agreement. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, access to affordable, quality health care is a fundamental value, and Medicare and Medicaid have helped millions of Americans live with economic security and dignity for 50 years. President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965 on the basic principles that access to health care is a right, not a privilege, and certainly no one should be forced into poverty because of healthcare costs. Thirty-four percent of those in New York's capital region that I represent depends on these programs, and we must do everything we can here in the House to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. No programs have changed the lives of Americans more over the last 50 years. We cannot strengthen these programs. We cannot ensure the long- term survival of these programs by passing budgets that turn Medicaid into block grants or Medicare into a voucher system. Medicare and Medicaid save lives, help people live longer, and provide the peace of mind that comes with affordable health care that is there when you need it most. Moving forward, I hope the House breaks with its recent tradition and works together to pass meaningful legislation that boosts these programs, like the Affordable Care Act. Happy 50th birthday, Medicare. Happy 50th birthday, Medicaid. Here's to many, many more.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, once again, the House is considering a bill to set standards for coal ash disposal. Unfortunately, H.R. 1734 does not contain standards that will prevent the problems from poor disposal practices that have plagued communities across the country for far too long. H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act, largely maintains the status quo, a system that is operated by the States with no uniform Federal standards, and the status quo isn't good enough. In the 35 years since Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, the Environmental Protection Agency has been studying the issue of coal ash disposal. During this same time, the regulation of these facilities has been done by the States, and communities in many States have experienced serious problems related to improper disposal of coal ash. Spills resulting from coal ash impoundment failures have polluted water supplies, destroyed private and public property, and resulted in lengthy and expensive cleanup efforts. Action on this issue is long overdue. Last December, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule to strengthen the regulations on the disposal of coal ash. The final rule was published in the Federal Register in April. The rule was in development for many years. It is the result of an extensive public process. The Agency sorted through over 450,000 public-submitted statements during the comment period on this rule and held eight public hearings in communities across the country. EPA's rule is responsive to industry concerns that officially clarifying coal ash as hazardous waste would harm coal ash recycling efforts that utilize coal ash in new materials and products, and the rule is responsive to the concerns of public health and environmental advocates. For the first time, the rule establishes minimum Federal standards that all coal ash disposal facilities must meet. H.R. 1734 does not do that. H.R. 1734 enables States to do what some are doing now, that is, to allow continued operation of these facilities without sufficient safeguards. H.R. 1734 isn't about providing flexibility in achieving better standards. H.R. 1734 allows States to weaken a standard if facilities can't meet them. The standards set by the rule provide a guaranteed floor of protection for all communities. What are these? Well, location restrictions. New or expanded areas of existing coal ash facilities must now be sited with consideration and defined buffers with respect to aquifers, wetlands, seismic impact zones, fault areas, and, indeed, unstable areas. Liner design criteria are included to prevent leaching. The basic requirements in the rule to include both a geomembrane and a 2-foot layer of compacted soil can be met with an alternative design if the alternative would provide equivalent or better performance. Structural integrity requirements are defined in the rule to prevent structural failures, such as the one that occurred in Tennessee in the year 2008, a failure that caused tremendous damage when an impoundment failed. Operating criteria are included in the rule to prevent runoff and wind-blown dust, require periodic inspection and capacity limits, among other things. The advocates for H.R. 1734 have expressed concerns about the enforcement of EPA's coal ash rule. H.R. 1734 is offered as a remedy to this problem. Well, there is no problem. The rule will be enforced by the States through their own authorities to operate their solid waste management programs. I think that is what H.R. 1734 envisions. The rule will also be enforced through citizen suits; and, by the way, States sometimes bring these suits against private parties on behalf of their citizens. Listening to the majority criticize an EPA regulation because of its weak EPA enforcement provisions is, indeed, unusual. It is certainly not a complaint the Agency hears very often. The coal ash rule represents a compromise amongst the stakeholders in this issue. H.R. 1734 simply does not. It is not surprising there are those who are unhappy with certain provisions of this rule. H.R. 1734 is on the floor today at the urging of some of those stakeholders. Of course, the rule from either vantage point is not perfect. Given the differing opinions on the role of Federal regulation of coal ash disposal and the nature of the standards that should apply to these facilities, that is not too surprising. But I do believe this legislation--in fact, any legislation--is premature. Changes in regulation or in law take a long time, and hitting the restart button now will only lead to continued uncertainty and continued risk. We have had far too much of those already. I believe the rule should move forward. H.R. 1734 would prevent that from happening. We have had 35 years of weak protection. It has cost us a great deal. It is time for a more rigorous and stringent approach that prevents spills, water pollution, air pollution, and exposures to toxic substances. It is time to put people's health and safety first. EPA's coal ash disposal rule was years in the making. We should not discard the approach taken in EPA's rule before it has even been implemented or evaluated. EPA's rule emerged through an extensive public engagement and negotiation process and as a result of years of work invested by the interested parties and the Agency. The coal ash disposal rule should be implemented and given a fair chance to work. If it does not, we certainly retain the option of moving legislation forward. H.R. 1734 is unnecessary, and H.R. 1734 offers far weaker protections than those of EPA's final rule. I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Well, I just say, let's move forward with investment. It happens when we have a laser sharp focus on just where to apply our resources to capital, physical, and human infrastructure, so as to be the strongest competitor out there in a global race for kingpin of the innovation economy, and whoever wins that race, becomes the go-to agent for the worldwide economy. So we can't afford to hesitate or fail in our attempt here. Thank you, again, for leading us.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi. It is always a pleasure to join you on the House floor to speak to any issue, but in this case, to Make It In America. I am certain through the hour you have talked about the capital and physical infrastructure demands, but we also have to highlight the human infrastructure portion of the equation that will resound in the greatest success for the Make It In America agenda, and that is training the skilled talent that we need. We need to promote the development and the advancement of manufacturing--advanced manufacturing, as it has been coined of late-- but also to understand that it is an innovation economy, and so that means dealing with issues in production with great precision. That great precision requires extremely gifted skill sets and education, apprentice programs in higher ed, making certain we have a growing force of engineers, where we are woefully underproducing the amount of engineers we require. There are bits of legislation that all of us have cosponsored, that perhaps we are leading as sponsor, that will encourage the development engineers that we require for our being able to be a great manufacturing nation as we move forward. Those are important elements, making certain that we have the precision instrumentation that will enable us to, again, compete because it is not the cheapest investment, but the wisest investment that is made. It is not going to be significant by the dollar only, but what is the best product, what is the most thoughtful product that is developed for whatever needs society may have. The engineering components of all of this is very important, and the skill set component is very important. As we go forward, we want to make certain that that human infrastructure is geared up and ready to go with cutting-edge skill sets that speak to today's economy. That is very important. Mr. Speaker, we have always prided ourselves on a strong workforce, a well-trained, well-educated, and well-equipped force that goes out there and enables us to compete and compete effectively in a global race on innovation. That has grown significant over the last decade. We see more and more investment coming in, that human infrastructure from nations around the world that will then be competing with this Nation to be able to export its goods, so a full complement of programs that are essential in policy format and resource advocacy and investing in that Make It In America agenda, investment here where there are rightful anticipations of lucrative returns on the taxpayer dollars that are invested. I thank you for the laser sharp focus you put on to Make It In America as an agenda and the underscoring of importance that you have drawn to manufacturing as a sector. It was walked away from by previous administrations. This administration, the Obama administration, has talked about sound investment in advance manufacturing will enable us to stop bleeding the loss of manufacturing jobs where we are losing, at one point, one out of four. We are still perched pretty high in terms of manufacturing jobs, but we have to stop that bleeding, and the way we do it is by turning it around with policy and resource advocacy. And I thank you again for your leadership in this regard.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, we are closing in on yet another deadline and yet another needlessly manufactured crisis at the end of this month: the reauthorization of the highway trust fund. Two months ago this body passed a short-term extension of the highway trust fund at the very last minute, as is standard procedure nowadays here in the House, temporarily protecting 660,000 jobs and extending 6,000 critical construction projects. Republican House leadership has had more than a year to craft a bill that would repair our crumbling infrastructure, provide certainty to States, and protect hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs hanging in the balance. Enough of this brinkmanship. Enough of this manufactured crisis. Enough of the short-term patches that waste time and money on problems that we create for ourselves. It is time to pass a commonsense, ambitious, and long-term extension of the highway trust fund that rebuilds, renews, and puts America to work. We just heard memorialized on this floor the former chair, the late Jim Oberstar, who headed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He knew this was a sound investment in America. Let's go forward with that.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, even though many in Congress still refuse to admit that climate change is a very real problem, the administration has been leading action on what has become one of the most important issues of our generation. This week the White House announced a new initiative to increase access to solar energy, especially in low- and moderate-income communities. This is a critical step to reducing our carbon footprint and showing the world that we are, indeed, ready to lead by example when it comes to clean energy innovation. The initiative expands training and education for jobs in the solar industry and is a partnership with the private sector to increase diversity in a new ``green collar'' workforce. Access to clean, reliable energy results in good-paying jobs, cleaner air, and an opportunity for our innovators and entrepreneurs to grow our economy. As a member of the Safe Climate Caucus and a co-chair of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, I applaud and support the administration's announcement this week and will continue to press for broader climate action in this Congress.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a misguided attempt to hold back change and progress. Climate change is a problem. We must deal with it. The clean power plan is an important step in that direction. It is very disappointing to hear such a ``can't do'' attitude. We have always been a nation that tackles big problems rather than denying them. Many States have already achieved significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions through regional carbon trading, renewable portfolio standards, energy efficient programming, and investments in clean energy. My home State has made great strides. And if there is a flaw in the proposed rule, it is that the proposal asked States that have already done a lot to reduce their emissions and modernize their electric grids to do even more. By contrast, the requirements on the States that have resisted change and have done far less, are asked only to get started. This bill invites some States to continue to avoid doing their fair share to address the serious environmental and economic threat posed by climate change. New York State will continue to work on this problem, as will a number of other States that have already taken the steps that I mentioned earlier, but it would be nice if our neighbors also helped to address the problem that we all had a role in creating. This bill should be defeated. It certainly will not go far in the Senate, and it would not get signed by our President. Its consideration is, indeed, a waste of time. We should be using our time to find real solutions to the problems we all face. This bill offers no solutions, just another way to avoid addressing our problems. With that, I urge defeat of H.R. 2042.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very dear friend, Dick Horigan. Richard hails from my hometown of Amsterdam, New York. Dick turns 90 on Friday, and it is worth noting this milestone because he has epitomized the generosity, humility, and dedication of the World War II generation, and he has made Amsterdam a better place as a result. Richard T. Horigan wasn't born in Amsterdam, nor did he grow up there. In horse racing terms, a sport he continues to enjoy at the nearby historic Saratoga Race Course, Dick was a ``shipper'' from Scranton, Pennsylvania. After serving in the Navy in the Pacific during World War II, he enrolled in Georgetown University. On a blind date, he met Marie Smeallie, the beautiful daughter of Donald and Agnes Smeallie of Amsterdam, and they were married shortly thereafter. Upon Dick's graduation from Georgetown law school, Marie convinced him to move to Amsterdam and begin his law practice there. Since 1951, Dick has been a pillar of our community. Retired now, he was very active in the American Bar Association and the American College of Trial Lawyers. Dick was the consummate attorney and a leader in his field. He was the village attorney for nearby Hagaman, and practiced before the United States District Court, the Northern District of New York, and the United States Court of Appeals. In the 1970s, he struck out on his own, and his son, Tim, joined him to start Horigan & Horigan, which continues to be one of the top firms not only in Amsterdam, but throughout New York's greater capital region. While his love of his profession is strong, his love of family is even stronger. When Marie passed away in 1977, he found himself spending more and more time with Ellie Smeallie, who had been widowed many years earlier. In 1979, Ellie and Dick were married. This good- looking couple merged two great families and brought them even closer together. Dick is the patriarch of 13 children, 33 grandchildren, and, yes, 3 great-grandchildren. While many of them live outside of the region now, they all come back to visit, especially in August, when the historic Saratoga Race Course is open. In addition to horse racing, his other passions include golfing and helping St. Mary's Catholic Church, where I would often see him at mass in the mornings. We wish a happy 90th birthday to Richard Horigan. I hope there are many more to come, Dick. You are a beloved, reliable patriarch of an awesome clan. You are a respected, loyal friend to countless many, including myself. My message here on the House floor is: To a great man, have a great day. It is my honor to recognize your 90th birthday.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 1031--a bill to protect thousands of American jobs by preventing the Export-Import Bank from shutting down.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, last week Pope Francis echoed the chorus of 97 percent of climate scientists whose findings prove that climate change is real and is manmade, and climate change has the potential to destroy the only planet that we have. Let me say that again. Climate change is real, it is manmade, and it can reverse all the progress we have made as a nation. Pope Francis frames the reality of climate change in a way that we must consider if we are to protect our environment as directed by our Creator for future generations, future economic development, and future progress. The leader of the Catholic Church accurately points out that it is a moral imperative to act on climate change; it is a moral imperative to act as a good steward of the environment and the gifts we have been given. I thank Pope Francis, and I hope the words he shared last week will ring true with all of us, including those who continue to deny climate change, both in this body and around the world. I hope the Pope's encyclical will encourage deniers to work with us to find creative ways to clean up our environment, help create jobs, and make our world just a little bit better for our kids and grandkids.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman. I urge my colleagues to end the ineffective chemical policy that we have had for four decades and to support H.R. 2576. I, too, would like to thank some individuals who are very pertinent to this discussion and final product. I thank David McCarthy from the subcommittee staff on the majority side and Jerry Couri from the subcommittee staff, Jackie Cohen from our subcommittee staff on the Democratic side, and Chris Sarley of Chairman Shimkus' personal office staff, and Jean Fruci of my personal staff, the legislative director for my Congressional office.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and our ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Pallone, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act, which created a Federal program to manage the risks associated with our Nation's industrial chemicals. That law, TSCA, has never met that need. As a result, the public has lost confidence in this Federal program. The many failings of the current law have been pointed out in reports, reports issued by the Government Accountability Office and others. Well-intentioned attempts over the years to address some of the problems administratively or through voluntary agreements amongst the Environmental Protection Agency, the chemical industry, and the environmental and public health communities have failed. The public has too little information about the safety of chemicals that they are exposed to every day in virtually every product that they use. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm to people's health, EPA is unable to regulate exposure to toxic chemicals. Congress had to step in and explicitly legislate to gain public health and environmental protections from PCBs, for instance, and asbestos. Because of the regulatory vacuum at the Federal level, some States have legislated to secure protections for their citizens. In some cases, large retailers have initiated their own chemical policies to respond to what are consumers' concerns. Forty years of ineffective Federal policy is enough. H.R. 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act, amends TSCA and corrects the fundamental flaws that exist in our law. When my colleague Chairman Shimkus began the effort to reform TSCA in the last Congress, I knew the committee could produce a bill. I believed we could. I was not convinced, however, that we could pass a law; but H.R. 2576 is a decisive step, I believe, in that direction. I thank Chairman Shimkus, Chairman Upton, and Ranking Member Pallone for their continued cooperation and dedicated effort on behalf of this legislation. This truly has been a productive partnership, and the result is a good bill, a bill that I am pleased to support. H.R. 2576 is the result of much discussion, much work, and compromise by all parties involved. While no one group gets all that they might have hoped for in this legislation, every stakeholder group gets something that they need. Frankly, we all need a functional, fair, and reliable Federal program of chemical regulation. Industry gains a fair, predictable Federal program for chemical regulation, a program that will inspire public confidence in the safety of their products. In the context of our global economy, that is an important asset for doing business both here and in other countries. The public health and environmental communities gain a Federal program in which EPA evaluates chemicals and, based on those evaluations, will act to regulate chemicals the Agency determines present a risk to health or a risk to the environment. Under current law, in order to regulate a chemical, EPA must demonstrate that the benefits of regulating outweigh the costs. Under H.R. 2576, EPA's evaluation and decision on whether to act will be based solely on risk factors, risk factors alone. Considerations of cost will be addressed when the Agency selects among different regulatory options to reduce chemical exposures. That is a major gain--a major gain--for public health and a major gain for the environment. H.R. 2576 is a good bill. It offers significant improvements over our current law. I know many Members have concerns about states' rights and State preemption provisions in TSCA. I share those concerns. There is State preemption in current law, and there is State preemption in H.R. 2576, but State preemption only occurs when EPA takes final--final--action on a chemical, either finding it safe or regulating its risks. H.R. 2576 maintains a strong role for the States. With those changes in TSCA, the States will have a more active and credible partner in this effort at the Federal level. Again, I want to thank Chairman Shimkus, Chairman Upton, and Ranking Member Pallone for their excellent work on this bill. I appreciate the constructive partnership that we formed in working together on this legislation. We worked through many difficult issues and found that common ground. I look forward to continuing to work together as this bill moves on to the Senate.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. So it may be--I am just guessing here--that it is more than just genetics. It may be environmental in its impact or cause. Whatever it is, let's go for that cause. At one of these townhalls, a contemporary of mine whom I have known for a long time, as I have known her husband for a long time, said: ``My husband knows my voice, but he doesn't know my name.'' How do we not say ``yes'' to research? How do we not say we want to do all that we can to make a difference? When we do so, we are going to save our budget. We are going to save our budget a great number of consequences by being that powerful force that will do things academically, soundly, wisely, effectively, efficiently. That is what this business is about, a thoughtful response, a heartfelt response that, by the way, is the budgetwise thing to do. Let us respond as a government, as a nation.

Mr. TONKO. And as we are concluding here, I was just bringing to mind one of the Alzheimer's town halls that we are required to conduct, and it told me a few things: that this disease is percolating lower and lower into the age demographics.

Mr. TONKO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, for bringing us together in this very Special Order as we discuss the impact of Alzheimer's upon the quality of life not only of the individual living with the disease, but on family members and loved ones that surround that individual. So much of the work that we do in this House, so much of the work done on the Hill here in Washington, needs to be guided by the moral compass. Our budget priorities should reflect who we are as a people and the compassion that is required as we see these numbers continually grow-- balloon--in terms of an impact on the budget. And that should challenge us to do all that we can to be not only compassionate, but to be effective when it comes to the fiscal impact of what is happening to far too many families across this country. It is a known fact now that Alzheimer's is the most expensive disease in America. That should strike home. That should call upon our hearts and our minds to respond with dignity and with effectiveness to the given issue at hand. Our efforts for Alzheimer's need to be enhanced. There is no mistaking it. This is the most expensive disease in America. It is impacting the budget here in Washington. Our national numbers are a challenge, and we need to address the budget not only in sound strategy for the present moment, but with preventative elements brought to bear. So when we look at the most recent data--and those data are very telling--for 2014, the calendar year of 2014, the numbers are there, and it will remind us that $214 billion was the need, the drawdown, for speaking to Alzheimer's, responding to the Alzheimer's situation. That is a large number that is only projected to grow exponentially. As more and more baby boomers ascend the age ladder, climb that ladder, we should only anticipate that doing what we are doing is not going to be enough, that research needs to take hold here. We have the intellectual capacity as a nation. We have resources at our fingertips, and the priority here for providing the preventative elements of research are important. The President has offered an initiative with the study of the mind, the brain, that can provide several opportunities. It can release the information, the documentation, that is required to move forward to find a cure for this ever-growing disease. Look at the stats. Representative Garamendi, when we look at the research moneys, for every $100 invested in those individuals and families that are impacted by Alzheimer's, 25 cents is spent on research--for every $100, 25 cents. That is a very minute amount of investment, investment that has an anticipated lucrative return, paying dividends for all of us to address a cure, a hope for individuals. This country requires our government to respond in full fashion so that public-private partnerships in research institutes like the NIH, the National Institutes of Health, are funded appropriately. Accordingly, with the data that have been assembled, knowing what needs to be done, we should go forward with those efforts. Now, I am reminded, Representative Garamendi, routinely by families-- and many women will draw that perspective for me, that of those who are living with Alzheimer's in this country, two-thirds--two-thirds--of the individuals living with Alzheimer's, or 3.2 million people, are women. This disease is impacting women in a disproportionate measure. It is extracting from us all sorts of voluntary efforts that are required. Volunteers are responding as unpaid caregivers. We know the stats. The data are compelling: 15.5 million volunteers, caregivers, providing unpaid services, unpaid care, equaling 17.7 billion hours. These are staggering numbers, 15.5 million providing 17.7 billion. That amasses to $220.2 billion in terms of services provided, unpaid services provided. So it is not only costing the Federal Government money, projected to balloon heavily, but it is also extracting $220 billion worth of unpaid services that are provided to individuals by loved ones, by those concerned in their community, for the struggles that these individuals and their family members are facing. So this behooves us to do much better than we are doing. We are a compassionate society. We are unique. We have opportunities galore. I know what can happen. I have talked to our team in my district. Beth and the team from Alzheimer's Association of Northeast New York, they have done a tremendous job. I see what they do for respite care and what they are doing for services with the Alzheimer's Cafe, where people gather and cluster. They are given music therapy. There is an enhanced quality of life. It is with dignity that we respond. But more needs to be done, and there has to be that element that is provided out there that is speaking to prevention, that is speaking to a cure. So, Representative Garamendi, there is much to be done. I was lead Democrat on the Alzheimer's Accountability Act, which responded to the planning requirements that were earlier set up statutorily in this country. That act, the Alzheimer's Accountability Act, that passed successfully in both Houses and was signed into law by the President, requires that a professional judgment budget be put together. As was stated earlier on the floor, until 2025, there needs to be this commitment made for research for Alzheimer's and related diseases. But we furthered the quality of that legislation, of that statute, by requiring professionals to project the numbers that are needed. That is a very important element. Clinicians and professionals in the medical community will tell us, they will advise what that number ought to be. That is speaking with integrity, with the veracity that is required, with the dignity, and with the compassion that is so much required for the Alzheimer's community. So again, I thank you, Representative Garamendi, for having that heart, for leading us in this Special Order so as to comprehend what we need to do here, to move that moral compass, to be there for those individuals, to be there for those unpaid caregivers, and to be there for the research community, but most importantly, to be there for the soul that is struggling with Alzheimer's or dementia-related diseases. We are at our best when we connect emotionally so that we can put together the programmatic response and the intellectual response that enable us to provide that light at the end of the tunnel which is so important and so meaningful to the families that endure. I thank you, Representative Garamendi.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. Representative Garamendi, it only takes one visit, but there have been many visits that I have made to the centers, the day care center operations that are conducted for individuals and families who are living with Alzheimer's, and to witness and hear the hurt, the confusion, the pain that surrounds the individual. It is enough challenge to try and get this done in as quick a fashion as possible. But if that doesn't move us, the economics on this. You know, we earlier talked about the $214 billion impact in 1 year--some of our most recent data. Well, that is 1 in every 5 Medicare dollars. How much are we willing to have that take over the Medicare expenditures before we come to our senses to say, let's do more in research, let's do a preventive response? Does it need to grow that much more? Does the drain on Medicare, does the reflection of Alzheimer's-related Medicare expenditures need to be that much greater to bring us to a response? The challenges are there, the data are there. We need to move accordingly. Now, earlier, I had expressed that two-thirds of the people living with Alzheimer's, the 3.2 million people, happen to be women. Well, 60 percent of the unpaid caregivers happen to be women. So there needs to be a response here to enable people to be addressed with a sense of compassion, with dignity brought into the equation. It is absolutely essential. And when we talk about those caregivers and the $220.2 billion that is the calculation for the volunteerism they offer as caregivers, of that community of caregivers, they have been worn down physically. So the price tag for them is an additional $9.3 billion in terms of response to their physical health care needs. This is a drain on families, on loved ones. It is an undignified outcome for far too many Alzheimer's patients who require our support, who have earned the respect of this body and Congress moving to provide for research opportunities. Now, one other effort that I am making now in the aftermath of the Alzheimer's Accountability Act, that victory being behind us now, I have now served as the lead Democrat on the HOPE for Alzheimer's Act, which would authorize Medicare investment in sound planning upon diagnosis of Alzheimer's so that individuals and their families who are so diagnosed can sit down and plan accordingly for their care, for their treatment, for their needs. That is an important bit of quality that can be introduced for the individual and her or his family so that their life, already severely impacted by this outcome, can be as manageable as possible. And we are hopeful with some 183 cosponsors of a bipartisan nature who have come forward to say, Sign me up for the HOPE for Alzheimer's Act. So isn't that what we are supposed to be? Aren't we those agents of hope? Do we walk away from this dilemma? Do we walk away from this need? Do we walk away from the struggle, the pain, the hurt, the confusion that people live with every waking hour of every day? Or do we respond in that all-American fashion and say, yeah, we have the intellectual capacity as a Nation; yes, we have the resources. It is an order of prioritization. And that priority here needs to be a response, a full-fledged response, a compassionate response, a loving response coming from us as individuals and collectively as Congress to say, yes, we support these efforts that are required, that are possible. Do not deny the possibilities. Let us go forward and be those sound decisionmakers who understand that this issue, when addressed accordingly, with human compassion offered, with the humanization of this process, we are then offering a cost-effective outcome. A study of the brain initiative that the President has advanced should be supported. These resources that are required for planning, for research, for services, for respite need to be funded accordingly. It is within our grasp, and it makes sense to do so. So, Representative Garamendi, I thank you for leading us in this Special Order, which is absolutely key to public information exchange. For those who may be viewing, I would suggest that you contact those of us who serve you in Washington and let us know that you want this to be a priority. Tell us you believe in the research capacity of this country. Tell us you want to humanize that response, more deeply respond to the individuals and families that are so impacted. When we hit so many people, when we see the millions who are living with this disease, we can't escape that impact falling upon us. Neighbors, family members, friends who we know are living with this disease require our attention, require our responsiveness. So I thank you for leading us in what is a very valuable discussion.

Mr. TONKO. That chart is very powerful. The trillions--with a T--will really balloon our budget, and really it is undoable. It gets to a level where it will exhaust, it will overwhelm other areas of investment that are required. But translate that from dollars into human suffering, pain, confusion, reduced quality of life. That is a calculus that needs to be made. If it is going to save us money and at the same time respond with that moral compass, why are we not doing that, why are we not responding? So, to me, that is where we are at. When you see the unleashing of technology, of research, of the potential for progress to be made, it is there. It is documented from so many perspectives in work that is done by the National Institutes of Health and others. For many, they will say, well, leave it to the private sector. No, there is a track record up there for this country to have stepped up to the plate and made a difference, for vaccines and other sought-for outcomes that affected people in a positive way. They gave them hope. Our government has a track record of having stepped up and invested in research where perhaps the private sector wouldn't go or where we have shaved some of the risk off of that demand for research in a public-private partnership. So it is there within our potential. We should not deny our loved ones, our constituents, our country the opportunity to advance the cause of research and to respond again with a sense of hope for those who are living with this within this darkness. We can and we must do better. I am happy to work with individuals like Representative Garamendi to push to make a difference and to be there in a responsive manner, and I thank you.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, the House faces yet another deadline at the end of this month to reauthorize an agency that levels the playing field for American manufacturers, reduces the deficit, and has supported 1.3 million jobs since 2009. That agency is the Export-Import Bank. In my district alone, Ex-Im has supported a total export of more than $2.4 billion, and more than half of the companies that work with them are local small businesses. From New York Apple Sales to Imperial Pools, businesses in New York's capital region and across the Nation have benefited greatly from the work of the Export-Import Bank, and there is absolutely no reason it should fall victim to the same culture of politics and brinksmanship that has cloaked this body for the past few years. There are 1,053 business organizations, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the Capital Region Chambers of Commerce, that have urged Republican House leadership to renew Ex-Im. A majority of this House, including 180 of my Democratic colleagues who have signed the discharge petition to reauthorize the Bank, have expressed support to renew Ex-Im. All we need now is a vote. Our small businesses, our workers, and our taxpayers deserve it. Let's make it happen.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is filled with plenty of procedural gimmicks but with no opportunities to actually improve the underlying bills. These bills fail to have enforceable environmental negotiating objectives; they fail to address currency manipulation adequately; and they fail to recognize climate change and its connection to trade. I had proposed amendments to address these issues, which were, unfortunately, not made in order. Since NAFTA and other subsequent deals, millions of United States manufacturing jobs--one in four, in fact--have been lost, and when manufacturing workers lose their jobs due to trade, the story doesn't get much better: three in five of them take cuts if they find a new job. This is a bad deal for those who lose their jobs due to trade, of course, but it is also bad for all Americans, and it is one reason wages have stagnated for the last two decades. We cannot afford to fast-track another NAFTA on steroids. On top of that, according to the Department of Labor, four TPP negotiating partners are using forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards. Are these the types of countries to which we want to give fast-tracked trade privileges? Plenty of multinational corporations will benefit from TPP, from increased drug prices to access to cheaper labor, when American jobs are offshored. That much is clear. Yet it is not clear how the average American worker--the people of New York's Capital Region that I represent and the people who sent all of us to be their voices in Washington--would benefit. Let's end this foolishness and take up bills that actually help our working families by passing a minimum wage, by requiring paid family leave, by investing in STEM education and research, and by rebuilding our infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, to defeat this inadequate trade adjustment assistance and to defeat fast track. My message: Hands off the American worker. Hands off the American worker's children. Hands off the American Dream.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The original COMPETES Act was visionary in its commitment to increased R&D funding, and I strongly believe we should continue to increase funding for worthwhile investments in our Nation's future. However, I have serious concerns with this bill that the majority has offered. In 2010, as a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to work on a truly bipartisan reauthorization of COMPETES. We worked together and chose to make certain that we innovate and we made certain that we would compete. This year I returned to the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, excited to again work on a smart and targeted COMPETES reauthorization. Unfortunately, there was no bipartisan process, and the result is a bill that does not live up to the original COMPETES vision. It would be more appropriately named the ``America Concedes'' bill. Why? Because at a time when the rest of the world is taking extraordinary steps to innovate, this bill would have America do the opposite. Its efforts are misguided, at the least. Major areas of research are not adequately funded, and the policy changes would take us in the wrong direction. Mr. Chair, I am concerned by the majority's fixation on allocating funding for NSF by directorate. This creates a dangerous precedent in denying NSF adequate flexibility and instead places political whims ahead of the need to independently foster true innovative research. I am also concerned by the effort to impose political review on NSF's gold-standard merit review system. The scientific community in our Nation and around the world agrees that NSF's review system works, and works very well. So why would we make it more difficult to encourage high risk, high rewards research? Instead, we should be increasing research funding, providing NSF the appropriate flexibility to fund innovative research, and we should be investing in a sustained commitment to STEM education. My district needs and deserves STEM as an education process. It doesn't want simple buzzwords. It wants a real STEM education effort. As a nation, we are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers. In order to remain a competitive global economic power in the 21st century, we must place a strong focus on STEM education. Instead, this bill provides flat funding for STEM education along with increased administrative burdens. That is not a commitment to STEM education. In practical terms, it is a decrease in funding. I am also concerned by the cuts in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and by the strike in funding for the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, or NNMI. These initiatives are smart investments and opportunities for our Nation to truly collaborate, to compete, and to be truly cutting-edge. This bill denies our American pioneer spirit.