Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, last week's Energy and Water Appropriations bill provided another glaring example of an opportunity squandered. We could have invested more in clean energy and certainly weaned our Nation off its heavy dependence on fossil fuels. We could have heeded the warnings of the scientific community and taken greater steps to reduce emissions and adapt our dams and ports and coastal infrastructure to new conditions. We did neither. Even worse, the bill contained riders to prevent the modeling and study of climate change. The climate deniers are condemning us to a future of crisis management. Organizations, including global manufacturers, governments, aid organizations, and the insurance industry are examining risks to key infrastructure of supply chain disruptions, water shortages, and increased political unrest. Instead of suing our President for taking action, we should be joining him and organizations around the world in the effort to understand and meet this formidable challenge. Failure to do so will be costly, and failure to do so will be tragic. We must do better. We should start by doing something.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Yes. I mean, we have some tough, tough issues to deal with, and this report card from professionals is telling the story as it is. Today, nearly 13 percent of New York's bridges are deemed structurally deficient. Some 27 percent of the State's bridges are considered functionally obsolete. Now, that is piling up. It is not going to get better until we invest. As it piles up, these concerns or these benefits from this investment are not being shared with the country. Now, people don't want to hear about climate change and global warming, but at least see it as a way to be more resourceful with the energy supplies that we do have. If you can't buy into the notion of cleaning up the air to avoid carbon emission and methane emission, at least see it as a way to pull cars off the highway and allow for mass transit, public transit, to enable us to better address the capacity situation of our roads and bridges throughout all of our States, then see it as a way to bring under control the transportation cost factor for commerce. When you build this port system, when you connect with rail and highways and bridges and when you have the ultimate investment made in today's state-of-the-art infrastructure, you are providing this golden benefit to commerce, so that they can compete and can compete effectively in a global marketplace. It is driven by commerce, as is our public safety, as is our connectedness as a Nation. So there are many benefits here. The multiple facets of all of this vision that the President has shared with this Congress should not be kicked aside. You don't kick this away, like you did the strategies and the solutions for our infrastructure needs. You sit down at a table together and perform, as this Nation expects us to on behalf of issues as critical as infrastructure. We know what has to be done. Let's do it. Let's be the professionals as we come together in a bipartisan fashion and bicameral fashion--the legislative branch working with the executive branch--and get it done. We have been inspired throughout our history with those concepts of the Erie Canal, the Transcontinental Railroad, the interstate highway system. Here is our moment. Do we let it pass us by, or do we move forward and get it done in grand fashion, where we are pulling cars off the road, enabling people to enjoy the public and mass transit opportunities as a Nation and where we have state-of-the-art port facilities so that we can ship our goods and so that we can enable commerce to be given that muscle it needs, which is the American way? Our grandparents knew about this. They handed us a better Nation. Where are we in this moment? As stewards of today's given strategy and policy, are we going to fail for the next generations? Or will they look at us someday and say: they got it, they did it, they did it well, and they did it with a sense of vision and planning and passion and commitment, and they scored for us as a generation, and now, we will build upon that success?

Mr. TONKO. Right. I think the approvals we are looking for here ought to come for sound investments that will bear benefits for generations to come--and in a multiple order of effectiveness for various purposes, from jobs to safety to connecting for commerce and the like.

Mr. TONKO. When you look at that strategy, Representative Garamendi, you sense the fundamental fairness. I look at projects like the efforts in New York where Governor Cuomo is leading this effort to make certain that we invest in the rebuild of the Tappan Zee Bridge. That takes traffic from the greater Metro New York area, the New York City area, and moves it along into upstate New York and into the Northeast area of our country--a major thoroughfare with a huge price tag. Now, if we partner with our States, that is helping those individual States to endure, to provide for the resources needed to build these major projects and to do them well. Otherwise, it falls upon the local taxpayer and on State income taxes and what have you--or whatever the State revenue supplies are--so that there is this partnership that is strengthened when the Federal Government leads with a strong commitment to infrastructure improvements. Now, in looking at the safety, the stretch is miles long as we travel from that metro area on the Tappan Zee Bridge into upstate New York. It was in need of improvement for quite some time, and I applaud the Governor for leading the effort now in putting it together, but, again, the Federal partnership here is important. For us to continue to ask middle-income America to pay the bill--they are already saturated with these efforts. They know that they have been stressed out. What this measure does is provide fundamental fairness again. It is not just about the projects done, the vision shared, the implementation of a plan. It is about a revenue side that comes together in a progressive fashion, in socially and economically just fashions, to make certain that there is an equal sense of responsibility to bear in terms of providing for the infrastructure improvements that we as a Nation, as an American society, require. Let's go forward and be the bold pioneers, if you will, of this generation and show people that we didn't miss the opportunity to invest in America. This Nation, as great as she is, with this economy as strong as it can be, requires assistance through our wonderful history, and this is not a surprise. It should not be a surprise. We need to constantly upgrade and improve and maintain our infrastructure. Tonight, we have spent a lot of time, Representative Garamendi, talking about projects and initiatives that can move us forward, but there is also a commitment that needs to be made to the maintenance and operational costs of these systems. If we don't commit to that, it sooner or later catches up with us, and then there are requirements for huge bond acts, or there are various ways to come up with strategies, and when you come into moments like this, you will have resistance from certain thinking, philosophical approaches in government, and it makes the job all the more difficult. We know what needs to be done. We have been bolstered by our rich history. We were at our best when we invested in America. Let's learn from that. Let's seize the moment. Let's go forward and commit to commerce, to safety, to the general public--to the needs of the general public. Let's provide for that strength of America, for that pioneer spirit that has always driven us. I know I have talked about this so many times when I have been with you on the floor, but the pioneer spirit was on display when we built that Erie Canal. It was on display when those manufacturing towns built their factories. It was on display when so many of our ancestors as immigrants came here and tethered their American Dream. They climbed that economic ladder. They ascended with those opportunities to provide for their families, for their children and grandchildren to go forward. That is us. That is the synergy of this Nation. That is the passion of the American public. We deny that when we deny the vision, the plan, the investment, the policy, the initiative driven right on this floor that ought to be bipartisan in nature. Make no mistake about it-- bipartisan in nature. Let's move forward. Let's have that plan. Let's have that vision, and let's commit to this future.

Mr. TONKO. Before you go there, let me just share this, because even though it is 27 years old as a memory, it is still vividly captured by so many of us that lived in upstate New York. When I served in the New York State Assembly, Montgomery County, New York, is my home area. We are a donor county to the New York State Thruway system. Twenty-seven years ago, ten lives were lost when a Thruway bridge collapsed. It, obviously, was a terrible price for those ten individuals to pay. Their family members and friends would remind us that there is no pricetag that we can put on that loss. I can tell you the economic impact on many counties in that region was severe. Interestingly, no one from that home county, my home county, was lost in that tragedy. Some in New York State paid dearly for that tragedy, but people whose home States were far away from New York were lost in that tragedy. So that reminds all of us that we are all at risk, no matter where that deficiency may be, no matter where that lack of investment may fall. We are all at risk because we are interconnected, incredibly so, which is an undisputed fact. Any failure out there, any deficiency, challenges each and every one of us. And so when we talk about the future, that past history of lack of investment needs to remind all of us that there is a worthiness here that this should be a high priority. You talk about the delays that trip has measured. The impact on people within the capital region that I represent in New York is some $1,600 annually in terms of idle time, in terms of repairs required to their vehicles, in terms of accidents that might be caused by less than acceptable conditions on those roadways. So this is costing us, as you just indicated, annually. We need to understand that it is about public safety and it is about avoiding accidents and tragedies. It is about connecting the Nation. It is about investing in commerce. That is what this is telling us. It is the requirement of this Chamber and the United States Senate and the White House to come together and get things done. This President has urged us to accept his plans to close loopholes that will provide revenues in a long-term strategy, that will provide for work for millions of people in the trades industry, to put their skilled labor abilities to work for us as a nation and to make certain that future consequences like those that were faced in Montgomery County with the bridge collapse aren't repeated time and time again. Before we go to the future, I just wanted to set that tone for some very tragic situations that we as a nation have endured. I am speaking of one assembly district in one State, but I know across the country there have been these terrible situations where the infrastructure weakness gripped us with pain and consequence.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi.

Mr. TONKO. I believe that is 53 minutes, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. TONKO. Yes, we can.

Mr. TONKO. I believe we probably have about 5 minutes now. I think we go to about 7 minutes after. Look, I think what you point to--the gentleman from California is absolutely right on. It is a ripple effect. It is not just the rail tracks that are developed, the railways that are developed. It is not just the highways and bridges. It is incorporating rail cars. Now, here is a ripple effect. As we have grown the efficiency of the system, now we are building, manufacturing rail cars, putting people to work, alternatively-fueled vehicles that can enable us to continue in that effort to reduce carbon emission and methane emission, making certain that, again, we go through this whole process, coming out more environmentally sound. So, yes, today's vote was a big disappointment, in terms of what we could have accomplished. It was that short term, get out of this immediate challenge, and let's go forward. There is not that vision. There is not that full indepth plan that is required of us, and certainly, we fell short--far short of the mark that should have brought us across the finish line and enabled us to say, hey, we scored really well here, we put together a sound package. This is about putting a strategy together that enables us to advance all of these cutting-edge technologies that enable us to strengthen the manufacturing base of America where these ripple effects reach us into our communities. You talk about the locomotives of today and the future that are driven by the intellectual capacity of workers and researchers in this country. I think back on the industrial heritage of Schenectady, New York, that I represent here in the House. The American Locomotive Company, ALCO, was producing tremendous cars that enabled us to again have that richness of rail history. Well, you know, all through our history, there have been those decades and chapters that have inspired us because we met the task, we came ready to deliver, and we were not going to let any force stop us. That is the greatness of America. That is how we achieved. That is how we climbed to our mountains, where people noticed America, where we were that beacon of hope, where the best things came from this Nation. Are we ready to settle for second best? Fifth best? I don't think so. So let us move forward. Other nations are investing in their infrastructure. You hear it all the time, about rail systems in Europe and Asia. You hear about the improvements that people have made with subway systems and the like. We know that we have got the smarts to do it. We have got the intellectual capacity to lead not only this Nation, but the world, and as we go forward, let us be proud of the fact that we can come together, make things happen, and have that long-term strategy, which was just not here today for that vote. It was not here today for that vote. I will repeat myself. The Republican majority didn't have their votes enough to pass the measure, so they obviously didn't believe in what they were doing, and it is unfortunate. It was the only game in town. It was the only plan placed on the table. We need to do better than this, and we can. So our bright days of tomorrow lie ahead of us, only if we are ready to muster up the boldness to make it happen. Representative Garamendi, to you to close.

Mr. TONKO. What I would add to your support of statements would be that, as we delay, as we do these gimmicks, as we do these kicking the can down the road scenarios, there are projects lining up. They are building up. We are not resolving the overall core of concern out there. In a way, projects are piling up. In New York, the American Society of Civil Engineers has given this country, as you stated earlier, a poor report card on our infrastructure.

Mr. TONKO. Right. What I like about the plan, Representative Garamendi, is that it is all-inclusive in terms of an umbrella approach that encompasses several policy areas. It is not just transportation, which is very valid and certainly urgent, but we also address environmental policy, energy policy, economic development policy, and urban policy. There are a number of strategies that come together into this one initiative that allow us to be smart about our investments and to be efficient. And isn't that what people seem to call for when they go to vote each and every time for Congress? People interpreted the 2010 election that the voters were saying government is the enemy, government is the problem, government is too big. I think the people said, no, we want efficient government, effective government. That is what a strategy like this provides. It incorporates planning. It incorporates investing on a routine scale so that we are not doing these catch-up games that require down payments of interest before we even get some investments made in infrastructure. So I like this. With the rail portion, we are talking about the most energy-efficient form of travel. In order for us to provide a benefit to the public or to commerce, a transportation quotient is an important factor in the household budget and planning that all of us do as households and in budgeting for business so that they can cut that factor and be competitive in landing the contracts for the work that they do. So rail is an important component for that vision of providing a sounder outcome. It is better for the environment, and there is less pollution as we become more energy-efficient in our travel. The next order of business is the connection with urban cores. Multimodal concepts enable us to again provide for the recovery of our inner urban cores. We have been lacking for sound urban policy in this Nation. It is time for us to have a heart for these urban cores and to put together smart growth strategies, which this sort of planning, this sort of vision enables us to do. And the list goes on and on. To your point, Representative Garamendi, we are going to put people to work, too. That is not a bad thing. Instead of coming up with dollars to sue a President, why don't we invest in our infrastructure? We are going to rush around this week and come up with ways to make certain that we can go forward with a lawsuit against the President. We are going to invest hard-earned taxpayer dollars to prove a point, to stage some sort of political theater and not do the sort of priorities that the American public is calling on us to do. They don't want this acrimony to be driven by additional digging into the pocket of the taxpayers. They want soundness and effectiveness of programs. They want to know that what we do will grow jobs, create a climate that fosters private sector job growth, enable us to be more competitive, enable our public to be more safe as we travel, and enable us to put people to work. That is what people deserve. They are calling for that sort of vision and initiative. We owe it to the American public to put into play this long-term strategy that we know deep in our hearts is the best thing to do.

Mr. TONKO. And there is talk of how we will provide the dollars to make that happen.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Representative Garamendi, let me, once again, thank you for leading us in this hour of discussion, 53 minutes worth of discussion, that focuses on the value added, the importance of investment in transportation projects. Back to our humble beginnings as a Nation, we were able to cite the relevance of having investments made in transportation. Whether it was to address public safety, whether it was to address the needs of commerce, or to grow our Nation, transportation investments have always provided that lucrative dividend that enables us to be just that much stronger as a Nation, and certainly to build our competitiveness to the ultimate. That is the wisdom here that comes with an associated investment in transportation. Now, we have throughout our history tremendously sound ideas of how we work together as a Nation with a vision, with a sense of purpose, that enabled us to move forward, whether that was investing in an Erie Canal that gave birth to a necklace of communities called ``mill towns'' that enabled people to tether their American Dream in those given locations, as they were to find life anew here in their new country, or whether it was the Transcontinental Railroad. There was an investment, there was a plan, there was a vision shared by this Nation where we chose to go forward and invest those dollars so as to enable us to connect as a Nation, enable us to, again, sharpen the edge, the competitive edge of this country. Or perhaps it was an interstate highway system that found President Eisenhower working with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to put together this strategy, to have a better way to allow us as States, individual States, to, again, connect as a Nation. So, we have been, or should be at least, inspired by these chapters of our history that showed that when we had this vision, when we executed this plan, when we dug deep to make the investment, and when we were bold in our initiative, great things happened. There were tremendous responses that came to build commerce, to provide for public safety, and to, again, connect the Nation. Today, the saga is no different. We should respond again in robust fashion, and understand that in this new century it is important for us as we compete in a global economy to offer our business community the best sets of infrastructure investment so that we can move forward with that sound down payment that enables them to function and function well. What we have seen here in the House, as my colleague from California just indicated, was a delay tactic, a kicking the can down the road, if you will. And as it was the only game in town, that was a ``take it or leave it'' situation, where we did not want a trust fund to be emptied, and we moved forward with this effort. However, the leadership bringing their bill to this floor didn't even have enough Members of their majority to support this measure. So, they needed to reach to Democrats to say: okay, we will move forward with this short-term solution, it is not the optimum, it is not near what is needed, and so now the work should continue to put together a legitimate opportunity for us to avoid insolvency in the near future. What do we need to do? We need to have a long-term strategy, we need to go forward to avoid what could have been without action today 700,000 jobs lost nationally and some 100,000-plus projects either delayed or coming to a grinding halt. We need to provide the predictability, the stability, for those groups that want to invest in our infrastructure. No corporation, no group out there, no business which involves itself in improving our highways and bridges will take this method seriously unless they feel that, they sense that stability. So, let's go forward and be sound about the investments we will make in our infrastructure, and let's put together that long-term strategy, because as we have witnessed in the past, and understand it to be today, that investment in infrastructure is the rock-solid cornerstone of a stronger tomorrow. Representative Garamendi, there is much work to be done. There is work to be done that will require investments into infrastructure, transportation and infrastructure, in every region of this country. We know that. Let's get serious about the business, and let's avoid these short-term strategies that, again, get into areas where we smooth pensions, which can create another crisis of another kind. We need to do better than what was done today, and we need to go forward. There were attempts to improve this, but this was the measure that was put before us, and, again, people saw it as the only opportunity to avoid insolvency of that highway trust fund. So, here we are again challenged in this moment to go forward with much better vision, with bolder initiatives, and with deep-rooted commitment to the transportation needs of this Nation.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4923 is far from a perfect bill. I have serious concerns about some of the policy riders in the bill, and I am disappointed that it does not contain higher funding for renewable energy programs, but there are a number of important programs that receive the funding they desperately need. We all know that tough choices have to be made within the overall funding allocations, and I want to thank subcommittee Chair Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work on the bill. Earlier this year, I joined with 79 of our colleagues in support of strong funding for two important energy efficiencies programs at the Department of Energy: the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. These programs were underfunded in recent House appropriations bills, and I am pleased that this bill includes a significant improvement in the funding status for these two programs. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in expressing support for these programs to the committee earlier this year, and again, I thank the subcommittee chair and ranking member for responding to our requests for robust funding for these programs. The Weatherization and State Energy Programs not only help our citizens to use energy more efficiently and effectively, these programs create and sustain jobs in communities across our great Nation. Energy efficiency improvements make homes more comfortable and keep utility costs affordable. They also create jobs for small business contractors in local communities. The Weatherization Assistance Program enables seniors and veterans and persons with disabilities and families with low incomes to make energy efficiency improvements that they would otherwise not be able to afford. Lowering their energy bills frees up limited income they can use toward other essentials like food purchases and medicines. DOE estimates savings from weatherizing a home of over $400 per year. That is real money to many families who are struggling to make ends meet. The State Energy Program enables our home States to develop and implement their own energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, projects that are tailored to address the very specific needs of our individual States. The electricity sector is undergoing, as we all know, a significant transformation. The old model of one-way distribution from central generation points is giving way to systems with more distributed generation. Grids need to be upgraded and are becoming smarter; security issues need attention; and changing economics, fuel mix, and regulations are also catalyzing changes in this sector. State Energy Programs have an important role to play in this transformation, and support for these programs will be very helpful to States as they work through these changes. On a separate issue, together with our colleagues Representative Owens and Representative Gibson, both of New York, we called for robust funding for DOE's Naval Reactors Program. The $1.2 billion included for naval reactors in this bill is critical to support three long-term projects: the Ohio class replacement, the spent fuel handling facility, and research and training reactor maintenance. Over the past 5 years, Naval Reactors has been funded below requirements by over $450 million, including $151 million below the President's fiscal year '14 request. While I was disappointed to see Naval Reactors at $162 million below this year's request, I do thank the committee for including some very important report language. The work done at the Kesselring site and the Knolls Atomic Power Lab is essential to our national security and our Navy's readiness. The training reactors at the Kesselring site in upstate New York are critical to training nuclear-qualified sailors. Earlier this year, unfunded maintenance and repair costs threatened to shut down one of the site's two reactors, which would have resulted in 450 fewer nuclear-qualified sailors in the fleet next year. This bill requires significant funding for training reactor operations and maintenance at the Kesselring site and fully funds development of the Ohio replacement at KAPL, which cannot afford further delays. I hope that we can work together to make sure this critical program is fully funded moving forward to ensure that the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet has the resources, sailors, and research it needs to operate effectively and safely. Finally, I am also pleased to see that the ARPA-E program receives robust funding in this bill. ARPA-E is an important program. Its mission to tackle big challenges in energy and move promising technologies forward into the market through strategic partnerships between government, universities, and businesses is vital to our long- term economic and energy security.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, I attended a vigil in remembrance of the 47 people that lost their lives in the Lac-Megantic railway tragedy in Quebec last July. This event drew a tremendous crowd, particularly from Albany's South End residents, who see dozens of oil tank cars move and idle outside their homes on a daily basis before entering the Port of Albany. My constituents are concerned about the potential for another fatal accident in one of our communities, as the trail of oil cars crosses over many communities that I represent. That is why I have been urging DOT all year to implement comprehensive regulations to address these safety concerns. We need a higher safety standard on new tank car orders and an aggressive phaseout of the old DOT-111s, which have no business transporting hazardous materials. The rail industry has taken voluntary steps to account for the DOT-111's inadequacies, but higher Federal standards are still needed. We also need to make sure shippers and oil producers are properly handling, degasifying, and classifying hazardous materials, particularly volatile Bakken crude, before it is even loaded into a tank car. I continue to urge DOT to make these much-needed, commonsense, and meaningful steps as quickly as possible. Inaction is inexcusable.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 365 on H.R. 4899, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yes'' when I should have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman for his yielding, and I thank him for his work as ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Chairman, with H.R. 6, we are embarking on a policy that will lock us into higher and more volatile natural gas prices, and that will erode a key advantage we have for domestic manufacturing, that being low natural gas prices. Natural gas is used widely throughout our economy. It is, indeed, a valuable commodity, and we should be setting policy to ensure that we use it efficiently and effectively. LNG terminals are expensive to build and require a lot of energy to operate. The contracts signed by exporters commit them to exporting LNG for anywhere from 10 to 20 years. We already had a small taste of what happens if there is an unexpected event that increases domestic demand when ready supplies are low and exports have increased. At a time when we are producing record amounts of propane, we had some of the worst shortages and price spikes we have seen in years. It was not entirely due to export increases, but it was definitely a factor. Many of our communities are paying the environmental costs of this natural gas boom. This bill is now going to deny them the benefits associated with sacrifices. There are very real concerns that this legislation would harm economic growth, job creation, and American manufacturing. This bill will not allow the adequate consideration of the public interest, including impacts on United States' consumers and manufacturers, before granting the approval of natural gas exports to countries with which we do not have a free trade agreement. In fact, because we do have free trade agreements with a number of countries, exports of LNG to them do not require any public interest analysis. The DOE has approved billions of cubic feet to be exported to nations with which we have free trade agreements and to others as well. We are in the midst of a manufacturing renaissance due, in part, to an abundance of affordable domestic natural gas. We have seen 12 consecutive months of growth in the manufacturing sector and a growing trend of the reshoring of jobs back to the United States. Why would we want to turn that trend around? Exports on the scale that this legislation would enable will raise domestic natural gas and electricity prices for every American and undermine our manufacturing competitiveness. The United States' natural gas prices are less than one-half of Europe's and one-third less than in places like Japan and South Korea. The integration of the United States' and Asia's natural gas markets would lead to increases in prices for consumers and businesses, undoing the economic conditions that have led to the recent growth in American manufacturing. The industrial sector represents some 22 percent of American energy use, with natural gas being the single largest input. Energy is consumed in the industrial sector for a wide range of purposes--from processing to heating, cooling, and as feedstocks to produce non-energy products. The chemicals, pulp and paper, iron and steel, refining, and nonmetallic minerals industries account for about one-half of all energy used in this sector. These industries alone represent millions of American jobs. That is why I am so concerned that the Energy Information Administration, the EIA, found that increased natural gas exports will ``lead to increased natural gas prices,'' and ``larger export levels lead to larger domestic price increases.'' The EIA looked specifically at the potential impact of these price increases on United States' manufacturers, and it found that a high level of LNG exports could increase natural gas costs for the industrial sector by between 5 and 27 percent annually. The amendment I offered to the Rules Committee, an amendment which was not made in order, would have prevented section 2 of this bill from taking effect until there would be a determination that LNG exports would not adversely impact the competitiveness of the United States' manufacturing community. American employers are struggling to compete in this global economy, especially with the jobs in the manufacturing sector. Domestic manufacturers are competing with countries that have low wages, limited environmental and worker protections, and manipulated currencies. Low- priced, abundant natural gas is a competitive advantage for domestic manufacturers. Let's not give that up. This Congress has an obligation to prevent the loss of American manufacturing jobs. The revitalization of the American manufacturing industry and the bringing back of quality jobs from overseas should be the cornerstone of our efforts in Washington in order to help the private sector thrive and to put our people back to work. This bill is only good for the natural gas-producing industry, and its increased benefits will be coming at everyone else's expense. With that, I urge the defeat of this bill.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I appreciate the gentleman from California, our distinguished ranker on the committee and former chair, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the energy bills before us this week do not lay out a roadmap for where we truly need to go; that is, to a future in which we have reduced our reliance on fossil fuels, greatly increased our focus on energy efficiency, and expanded our use of renewable energy. H.R. 3301 and H.R. 6 are all about keeping us dependent upon fossil fuels, especially oil and gas. H.R. 3301 establishes a new process for considering and approving cross-border energy projects--pipelines and certainly transmission lines. In fact, it would be good to have a defined and predictable process for evaluating these projects and either approving or rejecting them within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, this bill is all about approving these projects quickly, with minimal consideration of their value to all sectors of our economy, the value to our consumers, and certainly the value to our environment. The advocates for this bill and this infrastructure approval process sound as if we have never approved cross-border projects. But, in fact, we have many cross-border pipelines and transmission lines. This infrastructure, once in place, operates for decades. And all projects are not all equal in their impacts and are certainly not all equal in their size. This bill does not require a sufficient analysis of the overall benefits of proposed projects. It is not enough to determine if any project is in our national security interests. Those are important interests, of course, but there are many others as well. The public, State and local governments, nonfossil fuel business interests, and others should be able to offer their views on a proposed project. This bill virtually cuts them out of that effort. You do not gain public support for infrastructure projects by cutting the public out of the decisionmaking. H.R. 3301 does not provide for sufficient public input or sufficient weighing of overall national benefits and costs of these projects. Supporters of H.R. 3301 claim that this bill is not about the Keystone XL pipeline. Well, H.R. 3301 is not a Keystone XL approval bill, per se, but that project would certainly be resurrected and approved if this bill were to become law. This bill should not become law. It does not provide the type of thoughtful, comprehensive, and certainly inclusive process that should guide decisions that impact energy resources for many decades to come. I urge defeat of this legislation.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, in the last 5 years, moving crude oil by train has grown exponentially from a virtually nonexistent industry to a booming one with no signs of slowing down; but after a number of high-profile derailments, the need for increased safety regulations on shipping hazardous materials via rail could not be clearer. Last week, I had the privilege of attending a first responder training course that was focused on crude oil trains at the Port of Albany, which has become a major hub for crude oil shipments, processing more than 40,000 carloads last year. I know rail carriers and emergency planners are taking it upon themselves to prepare for handling hazardous materials in increased volumes, but regulatory steps are also needed. We need a comprehensive approach to address this issue, including expanding route planning and selection requirements, requiring response plans for rail carriers and ensuring shippers and rail carriers are testing and classifying their shipments appropriately. Many of these suggestions have been recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board. Many of the reforms I support are common sense. For example, comprehensive oil spill response plans are currently required for oil shipments greater than 1,000 barrels per tank car, but most tank cars only hold 700 barrels; therefore, trains, some with as many as 120 cars that are carrying crude oil, are not required to have comprehensive response plans because of this outdated threshold. Among other safety issues, tank car safety, particularly in regard to the DOT-111s, is a major concern for many of my constituents. Every day, trains transporting Bakken crude oil move and idle next to public housing and the highway near Albany's South End before entering the Port of Albany. Everyone agrees--railroads, suppliers and the NTSB, to name a few--that we need a higher safety standard on new tank car orders and an aggressive phaseout or retrofit of the old DOT-111s, which have no business transporting hazardous materials. Only 14,000 of 92,000 DOT-111 tank cars are currently built to the latest industry standards. The remaining 78,000 have demonstrated that they are prone to splitting open during derailments. The rail industry has taken meaningful and voluntary steps to account for the DOT-111s' inadequacies, including raising the industry standard for cars built after October of 2011, but we need higher Federal standards. This is long overdue, and DOT must act. I know this is an issue my good friend from New York, Ranking Member Lowey, is passionate about as well. Earlier this year, we sent a letter to Secretary Foxx, urging him to move forward with a rulemaking process that includes phasing out the DOT-111s. We should harmonize our regulations with Canada's already announced plan, which includes a 3- year phaseout or retrofit of DOT-111s. Just this morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Secretary Foxx about DOT's rulemaking process. I know this is a top priority for him, and I have been assured that it is moving forward aggressively. I encourage a speedy but appropriate resolution. I also appreciate that the chair included language urging a comprehensive approach to rail safety. The language directs the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to update emergency spill response planning thresholds and to finalize a rule on tank cars by the end of this fiscal year. The bill also fully funds the President's request for FRA's safety and operations account and PHMSA's hazardous materials account. Finally, the manager's amendment, during the full committee markup, designated some funds to hire additional safety staff to monitor routing and to make safety improvements on grade crossings that carry energy products. This, indeed, is a positive step. However, I would have preferred the inclusion of $40 million, as in the President's budget request, to establish a safe transportation of energy products fund within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in order to support prevention and response activities. Aside from the crude-by-rail issues, I understand the challenges of the current funding allocations, but I must strongly oppose this bill's shortfalls in numerous infrastructure and transit accounts. The FTA's Capital Investment Grant program is $809 million below the request. Amtrak's capital grants are cut by $200 million, and TIGER only receives $100 million, shamefully shortfalling what we need. It is my hope that we can improve this bill during conference, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to include appropriate levels for underfunded programs while building upon this bill's rail safety provisions. Again, I want to thank Chairmen Rogers and Latham and Ranking Members Lowey and Pastor for their attention to this critical rail safety issue. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, this bill is providing reasonable levels of funding for research and development to the National Science Foundation and NASA, but in the NOAA accounts, climate research is singled out for major cuts below last year's spending. It seems there are a number of us who believe that we can improve weather forecasting without doing climate research. This simply is not the case. The distinction between weather and climate is created by the time period we define to examine the temperature, precipitation, humidity, and other atmospheric phenomena we are experiencing. As our society and our economy have become more advanced, more interconnected, and more global, we increasingly operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. For better or worse, we assume that everything can and is operating all the time. Well, often because of weather conditions, that assumption is challenged. Travel delays in the airline industry alone due to weather events can result in multibillion-dollar losses. Phenomena such as droughts and floods and fires are not merely single weather events. Their probability of occurrence, duration, and intensity is a function of climactic factors that can only be understood and predicted if we can better understand short-, medium-, and long-term climate trends. I would note that the bill before us retains funding for the National Drought Information System. That is good news. But by cutting the climate research that drives improvements in the information delivered through this system, we are stifling the potential for this tool to provide better information to farmers, to ranchers, water managers, energy utilities, and the many other businesses, communities, and citizens who require dependable, adequate water supplies. It was climate research that led to our much-improved understanding of the El Nino and La Nina cycles that drive predictable changes in weather. As a result, farmers are able to adjust crop varieties or practices to prevent losses. We are spending an increasing amount of money every year on relieving drought, fighting forest fires, and on relieving disasters from tornadoes, hurricanes, and flood events. Instead of cutting climate research funds, we should be expanding them. Instead, this Congress continues to deny what is all too obvious to many of our citizens and to those of other nations: that climate change is underway. Some of our agricultural systems, transportation systems, and essential infrastructure are at risk. We can adapt. We can redesign and rebuild infrastructure, but we need to know where to concentrate our efforts and what type of adaptations will be necessary. We need to have a better understanding of the rate of change that we will experience. Climate research is providing that understanding. In February last year, the Government Accountability Office added the financial risk of climate change to its High Risk List. This past February, GAO testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs about the fiscal liability associated with weather and climactic disasters. GAO's recent work on this topic found that the number of disaster declarations increased from 65 in 2004 to 98 in 2011. The financial risk from the two primary Federal insurance programs--National Flood Insurance Program and the Federal Crop Insurance Program--are over $1 trillion. We paid over $60 billion on Hurricane Sandy recovery alone. And these are only the financial costs. Hurricanes Irene and Lee swept through my district in 2012. I saw firsthand the suffering caused by these storms. The loss of human lives and the destruction of homes and communities exact a terrible cost on those who experience these devastating events. We should be doing much more to spare our citizens from these experiences. With financial exposure of over $1 trillion and the known risks to individuals, communities, businesses, and infrastructure from climate and weather, it is absurd to claim that we are saving money by cutting $37 million from these programs. We must do our part to ensure that future generations have the opportunities that our parents and grandparents secured for us. Past generations built this Nation through their willingness to tackling the challenges of their time, by believing in the future of this Nation, and by investing in it. Climate change is real, and it will not have less impact if we pretend it isn't happening. We must stop ignoring this problem. We can choose to deny. We can bury our heads in the sand. When that sand is washed away, however, by climate change, it is over. Climate research is vital to our national security, our food security, our economic security, and to our future as a Nation. We should continue this important research effort and use the knowledge gained from it to inform and implement an adaptive strategy. With that, I urge support for this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. More than a little.

Mr. TONKO. Well, we all love Louise Slaughter. We extend our condolences for the loss of her beloved Bob, who was part of this institution. He was here so much and intellectually invested himself in the business of the House. Representative Garamendi, let me thank you for bringing us together in such a meaningful and bipartisan-spirited way to address the issue of Alzheimer's disease. It is my honor to sponsor the measure, the Alzheimer's Accountability Act, with Representative Guthrie. Alzheimer's knows no boundaries-- political, geographic, age, whatever. It is so important for us to come together in a spirit of unity and support for the Alzheimer's community. Recently, I joined the many advocates that came to the Hill here in Washington from around the country. Around a thousand people gathered for a breakfast. I heard of folks being diagnosed in their twenties. I heard of a gentleman diagnosed in his thirties and who died in his forties. It seems to be penetrating deeper and deeper into the younger age category. So it is important for us to make an all-out effort to invest in research and respite care and all sorts of developments that respond to the individuals and families who live with Alzheimer's on a day-to-day basis. The Alzheimer's Accountability Act is, I think, is so sound an approach because it addresses a professionally inspired budget that will have the scientists, the clinicians, those most in the front lines of addressing Alzheimer's, and their patients, forecasting what the needs are. As you know, we have set up a national project that requires planning from now to the year 2025. I think what is so good about the measure introduced by Representative Guthrie and myself is that it will require this professional judgment that will name the pricetag for each year as we go to 2025. It won't be left to us as a political force, but rather to the clinical health care provider community that will have the best estimates of what is needed. As I gather at the town halls that we have so that we can know of the progress or lack thereof, you hear heart-wrenching stories. People tell you they go to work because their spouse is struggling with Alzheimer's. They search employment so as to pull themselves out of that day-to-day routine because it is wearing on their relationship. And they spend every dollar earned to go toward respite. But they do it to save their relationship. People have acknowledged to me that they mourn twice. First, when the diagnosis happens and they have lost their loved one somewhat. They lost their personality or whatever. And then they mourn again with the physical departure. And others have said to me--one who comes to mind, a high school buddy--My husband knows my voice; he doesn't know my name. It doesn't get more heart-wrenching than that. So this is an immediate need, a priority, an urgency. Let's go forward and let's in a bipartisan-spirited way, bicameral, and working with the executive branch, get it done. Let's make certain the planning is there, that the resources are there for research, for respite care, for the entire continuum of services that are required so as to address the dignity and deliver hope to the doorsteps of individuals and families who face this constant struggle, who live with it on a daily basis and who have really seen the entire persona be lost in their mid. So it is an honor to be on the floor this evening with both of you gentleman and to work with you in tandem, in partnership, in a spirited way to make things happen.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, as Representative Guthrie said, we are at the $200 billion-plus mark today. And the tragedy of the situation is that for every dollar spent on Alzheimer's today, less than a penny of every dollar is spent on research to find a cure. We have to do better than that. The hope and the miracle lies in research. We have trained clinicians, we have a medical community that is raring to go. We need to invest in a far more significant way. It was a message we heard from our advocates when they came to the Hill. Again, I think it goes without saying that we all commit to that research budget. So, again, it was an honor to join you this evening in this very special caucus.