Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1119, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment, or SENSE, Act. The SENSE Act continues the theme of the floor this week, giving unnecessary preferences to a handful of special interests at the expense of clean air and people's health. The SENSE Act would weaken requirements of EPA's Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, or MATS, for power plants that burn waste coal by enabling a weaker compliance option for hydrochloric acid and sulfur dioxide emissions. To make matters worse, the bill prevents EPA from strengthening these standards for waste coal pants in the future even if pollution control technologies become significantly better or less expensive. I think we are all proud of the record of the Clean Air Act. As a nation, we have made significant progress since the 1970s, reducing air pollution while growing our economy. This bill is against the spirit of the Clean Air Act and the bipartisan amendments that have followed. We should not lock in an insufficient standard when progress is still possible. Polluters should be pushed to do better, especially when comparable facilities are meeting those given standards; but instead, these power plant owners would prefer to get special treatment and a pathway for meeting the weaker standards for many, many years to come. All the while, these plants will produce harmful air pollution. This is not only dangerous but unnecessary. The health risks of these pollutants are well documented, and it is, in fact, possible for waste coal plants to meet EPA's MATS. A number of waste coal units have achieved the standards, and pollution control technologies exist that would enable noncompliant facilities to meet them, too. EPA's MATS have already been examined by the courts, which would not grant an exclusion for waste coal utilities. The courts did not agree with waste coal plant owners that these standards were impossible to meet. EPA established that 8 out of 19 waste coal units nationwide could meet the rules' acid gas standard or alternative sulfur dioxide standard already. So now those companies are coming to Congress to circumvent the court process. Last year, every Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee opposed this bill. Those members understood that this bill is simply not fair. It picks winners and losers in States with waste coal plants, it disadvantages traditional coal-fired power generators, and it will allow for more hazardous air pollution. That isn't a good deal for the power generators that are already compliant with the standards, and it is a terrible deal for the people who have to live with more dangerous air pollution. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the SENSE Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), a longtime member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a thoughtful and passionate voice for the greater Pittsburgh area, and for that matter, all of Pennsylvania and our Nation.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I have no other speakers. I just would make mention that some 18 groups that are public interest groups have joined together in a letter opposing this legislation, suggesting and indicating strongly that it pits waste coal-burning plants against coal-burning plants, that it creates a public health situation that is an outcome that is negative for our constituents, and it basically cites that the courts have reviewed some of the requests made earlier and denied those requests because they felt that technology was available. I include the letter in the Record. March 6, 2018. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose the amended Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act, or SENSE Act (H.R. 1119). This bill would weaken health safeguards for Americans on behalf of special interest groups and result in more toxic air pollution and health hazards. The SENSE Act would provide a giveaway to power plants that burn waste coal under EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The bill favors waste coal-burning power plants at the expense of other in-state coal power plants and the public through blunt political favoritism. Specifically, the SENSE Act would permanently exempt power plants that burn waste coal from having to meet certain pollution limits. Power plants, including waste coal plants, are already meeting these standards--passing this bill would be a free giveaway to polluters, and nothing more. And the courts agree. When waste coal plant owners filed lawsuits challenging the MATS standards in the first place, they claimed it was ``virtually impossible'' to meet the acid gas and sulfur dioxide limits set in MATS. The court rejected the plants' arguments. The judges pointed to clear evidence that waste coal plants already were meeting these limits. EPA had evidence demonstrating that 8 out of 19 waste coal units nationwide already could meet the rule's acid gas standard or alternative sulfur dioxide standard. In fact, the court noted that not only were the plants meeting these supposedly ``impossible'' standards, but some of these plants were ``among the best performers'' in achieving hydrogen chloride reductions among all coal-burning units under the rule.'' Doomsday claims to justify this bill are just that. Waste coal plants have already had more time than other power plants to come into compliance with MATS. Rewarding laggards who continue to drag their feet, even after already getting special treatment, would undermine all pollution reduction programs and disincentivize compliance. Were this bill to become law, the result will be dirtier air for communities. Indeed, the SENSE Act drags health standards down to the level of the laggards--resulting in greater harms for Americans living in states with waste coal plants as well as in their downwind neighboring states. This bill is not only bad policy--it is unjustified. It favors the very dirtiest of polluting facilities at the expense of Americans, air quality, and responsible power plants who have already taken steps to clean up their air pollution. Worst of all, it will lead to greater toxic pollution and health harms to Americans. We urge you to oppose the SENSE Act. Sincerely, Center for Biological Diversity; Clean Water Action; Climate Hawks Vote; Earthjustice; Environment America; Environmental Defense Fund; Friends of the Earth; GreenLatinos; Hip Hop Caucus; Interfaith Power & Light; League of Conservation Voters; Moms Clean Air Force; National Parks Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; Power Shift Network; Public Citizen; Sierra Club; Southern Environmental Law Center.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1917, the Blocking Regulatory Interference from Closing Kilns, or BRICK, Act. EPA issued the Brick and Clay MACT rule in 2015, which sets maximum achievable control technology based on what is already being achieved at similar facilities. Section 2 of the BRICK Act seeks to delay compliance with the Brick and Clay MACT until ``judgment becomes final, and no longer subject to further appeal or review.'' This would incentivize frivolous litigation simply to put off having to comply with the rule. Courts already have the ability to issue a stay of any compliance dates in a final rule. Congress should not insert itself into the judicial process. The courts have regularly used this process. There is no reason for Congress to override it. To date, no one has petitioned the court to stay the Brick and Clay MACT rule. Section 3 of H.R. 1917 incorporates another bill reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, H.R. 453, the Relief from New Source Performance Standards Act. This section, Mr. Speaker, delays implementation of the EPA's step 2 emission standards for three categories of wood-fueled heaters. EPA finalized the rule in 2015. Under the rule, manufacturers have until 2020 to comply with the new standards. This bill would delay the standards until 2023. Much like the Brick MACT, these standards are achievable. In a recent list of devices certified under the 2015 standard, 171 devices report certified emission levels that already meet the 2020 standards. These 2020-compliant products are both cleaner and more efficient, generating more heat per unit of wood burned and making them less expensive to operate. By delaying these standards, Congress is unfairly punishing companies that made investments to produce cleaner, more efficient products by the original deadline. Since these appliances typically last for 25 years or more once installed, delaying this standard will result in decades of additional pollution in and around people's homes. The original bill, H.R. 453, was opposed by State attorneys general of New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. In a letter from December 12, these officials pointed out that EPA estimated the net benefits of implementing the rule at more than 100 times the costs. Wood smoke contains considerable amounts of fine particle pollution, carbon monoxide, and other toxic pollutants. In my home State of New York, less than 2 percent of residents heat their homes with wood, but residential wood heating accounts for 41 percent of the State's particulate emissions. Because the emissions are released close to ground level and homes, there is significant human exposure, which is why this bill is also opposed by a number of public health and medical organizations. The BRICK Act gives special treatment to a couple of industries by shifting the health and financial burdens of pollution on to the public. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, Congress should not be in the business of encouraging frivolous litigation or penalizing businesses that made the necessary investments to comply with standards, especially when clean air is at stake. Unfortunately, that is what the BRICK Act would do. These standards are achievable, long overdue, and provide considerable health benefits. It has been nearly two decades for pollution control standards for brick and clay facilities and nearly three decades since the last Federal standards for wood stoves. We shouldn't have to choose between a giveaway to a couple of special interests over clean air for all of our constituents. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, no one wants to shut down these businesses, but H.R. 1917 is the wrong remedy. We understand the circumstances, and those circumstances should be brought to the attention of the courts. The court has the power to grant the stay of this rule. For some reason, the industry has not yet made that request, even though there are a number of pending lawsuits challenging the rule. In fact, industry petitioned the court to put their lawsuits on hold until EPA decides whether to grant their request to reconsider the rule. The pending decisions by the court and the EPA indicate there are still a number of remedies available to address the industry's concerns, including a request to the court to stay the rule. There is no need for H.R. 1917. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in the grip of a gun violence epidemic; yet, even in the face of national tragedy, Congress has failed again and again to act. On January 10, 2018, a student in Denison, Texas, fired a weapon that belonged to an adviser, thinking it wasn't loaded. That same day, a middle school student in Maplewood, Minnesota, fatally injured himself with a gun in a school bathroom. On January 23, 2018, a 15-year-old student in Benton, Kentucky, opened fire with a handgun, killing two people and injuring 18. On February 14, Valentine's Day, 2018, a 19-year-old gunman killed 14 students and 3 faculty members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, using a semiautomatic weapon. Two months into 2018, its tragedies are too numerous to list. For too long we have allowed NRA's gun industry lobbyists to pick and choose our guns laws. I say: No more. Students across America are demanding Congress enact commonsense gun violence prevention, including universal background checks, limits on high-capacity magazines, and a ban on the sale of assault weapons designed not for a hunting field, but for a battlefield. We must not fail them again.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, America loses 7 billion gallons of clean drinking water every single day through broken pipes and leaking pipes. Flowing through those pipes, water, yes, but also dollars, tax dollars, to purify the water and treat it. Eighty-six percent of our households depend on public drinking water, and these systems are failing. I have seen my share of corroded pipes and broken pumps over the years. I have seen communities and businesses suffer from a water main break, which happens 700 times a day across America. Last week, I visited systems in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Rensselaer, East Greenbush, and Castleton-on-Hudson in my district. I visited that legendary baby food maker, Beech-Nut, in Montgomery County, New York, which requires 275,000 gallons of water per day. The message is clear: we must invest in our public water systems to protect our public health and to support our local businesses. We have a bipartisan bill, H.R. 3387, that has passed through committee and now awaits a vote by the full House. It would deliver critical funding to State and local governments to get this big job started. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Independent, every life and every job depends on access to safe drinking water. This is the kind of infrastructure plan we need. Let's get this job done.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express grave concerns about the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. This case threatens the freedom of working people to join together in strong unions to fight for their right to fair pay, safe working conditions, and a voice in the decisions that will affect their retirement security, healthcare, and the fate of their families. Since 1980, incomes for most Americans have risen just 1 percent, while incomes for the wealthiest among us rose by 204 percent. Incidentally, organized labor membership has seen a precipitous decline in this time period. I want to recognize some of my own constituents who are fighting back against the Janus case, so-called right to fire laws, and the antiworker agenda: Lorraine Aumic of Schenectady from Local 688; Bryan Schaeffer of Delanson from Local 886 in Schenectady; Michele Kuiber of Amsterdam from Local 671; and Judi Aubin of Clifton Park from Local 655. I thank them for their leadership in fighting for an increase in the household income for the great majority of Americans coming through the strength of unions.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, in the years following the Great Recession (2009-2012), 91 percent of all new wealth created accrued to the top one percent of earners. From 1980 through 2014, incomes for the wealthiest one percent of Americans rose by 204 percent while incomes for the bottom 50 percent rose by just 1 percent. During that period, the size and productivity of the U.S. economy have essentially doubled. President Trump likes to tout a booming stock market, but the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans own 92% of the stocks. The other 80 percent, four out of five Americans, own just 8 percent of that wealth and are being largely left behind. And things are about to get much worse, because the Trump tax scam does exactly the same thing that has failed us for decades: trickle- down economics. It failed under Reagan, it failed again under Bush. Every time Republicans ram it through, it adds billions, in Trump's case trillions of dollars to our debt, and the wealthy walk away with the benefits. The rich get richer and the rest of us just have to work harder for less. Meanwhile just in the past six weeks, Sam's Club laid off some 11,000 employees. Carrier cut another 1,500. AT&T laid off some 4,000. Kimberly Clark, the company that makes Kleenex and Huggies, just announced that it would use Trump's tax scam as an opportunity to lay off 5,000 or more workers and close 10 manufacturing facilities. Janus v. AFSCME is an effort by the wealthy and powerful to further insulate their economic power and ability to restrict access to wealth for the rest of us. Strong unions are key to unrigging this economy, improving local communities and the lives of union and nonunion families alike. Unions are associated with greater productivity, lower employee turnover, improved workplace communication, and a better-trained workforce. Data shows that unions and unionization lead to increased economic growth and competitiveness. According to the BLS, among full-time and salary workers, in 2017 union members had average weekly earnings of $1,041, non-union members had median weekly earnings of $829. When union membership is high, entire communities enjoy wages that represent a fair return for their work and greater social and economic stability and mobility. And unions advocate for policies that benefit all working people, e.g. minimum wage, affordable health care, and quality public schools. Unions provide a path to the middle class for working people by increasing their income and the economic security of their families. As union membership has decreased because of attacks on working people, income inequality has risen in the U.S. Source. Through collective bargaining, members of strong unions are scoring victories that help entire communities--like safer nurse-staffing levels that help patients and smaller classroom sizes that help students. AFSCME Region President, Ron Briggs, suggested you may recognize the following members because they have worked diligently to sign agency fee payers in their locals/units and are active in fighting back against the Janus case, right-to-work and the pro-corporate agenda: Lorraine Aumic from Local 688 Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance. She lives in Schenectady. Bryan Schaeffer from Local 886 Schenectady School Districts, Municipalities, and Towns. He lives in Delanson. Michele Kuiber from Local 671 Workers Compensation Board. She lives in Amsterdam. Jodi Aubin from Local 655 Environmental Conservation. She lives in Clifton Park. Janus v. AFSCME is the product of a political scheme to further tilt economic power away from working people and the middle class. It strikes at the freedom of working people to come together in strong unions. Unions are critical to America's middle class, providing economic stability, a good life, home and education for workers and their families. CEOs and corporate special interests behind this case oppose letting workers negotiate a fair wage for their work. The case was brought to manipulate the Supreme Court to satisfy blatantly political goals. In a 10-page State Policy Network (SPN) fundraising letter reported on in The Guardian, SPN President and CEO Tracie Sharp wrote that the goal of their Koch-backed network's $80 million campaign was to ``defund and defang'' unions. The original plaintiff in this case was Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner, who launched a political attack on public employees after taking office. A U.S. District Court judge ruled in 2015 that Rauner had ``no standing'' to bring suit, so the legal arms of the National Right to Work Committee and the Liberty Justice Center went looking for plaintiffs to serve as stand-ins for Rauner in the federal lawsuit. The Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 aims to take away the freedom of--and opportunity for--working people to join together in strong unions to speak up for themselves, their families and their communities. When teachers, nurses, police officers, firefighters and other public service workers are free to come together in strong unions, they win benefits like better working conditions, better wages, health care, clean and safe environments and retirement security that benefit non-union members as well. But the CEOs and corporate special interests behind this case simply do not believe that working people should have the same freedoms and opportunities as they do: to negotiate a fair return on our work so that we can provide for ourselves and our families. They are funding this case through the National Right to Work Foundation, because they view strong unions as a threat to their power and greed. When working people have the freedom and opportunity to speak up together through unions, we make progress together that benefits everyone. If the billionaires and corporate CEOs behind this case get their way, however, they will take away the freedom of working people to come together and build power to fight for the things our communities need: everything from affordable health care and retirement security to quicker medical emergency response times. The CEOs and billionaires want to use the highest court in the land to take away our freedom to create the power in numbers to win better lives for ourselves, our families, our communities and our country. People in unions continue to win rights, benefits and protections not only for union members, but for all working people and their communities in and outside of the workplace. When nurses, firefighters, 911 dispatchers and EMS workers belong to strong unions, they fight for staffing levels, equipment and training that save lives. And when union membership is high, entire communities enjoy wages that represent a fair return on their work and greater social and economic mobility. Without the freedom to come together, working people would not have the power in numbers they need to make our communities safer, stronger and more prosperous. The National Right to Work Foundation is part of a network funded by corporate billionaires to use the courts to rig the rules against everyday working people. For decades, the corporate CEOs and billionaires funding this case have used their massive fortunes to pay politicians and corporate lobbyists to chip away at the freedoms people in unions have won for every single one of us. Now they want the highest court in the land to take away our freedom to come together to protect things our families need: a living wage, retirement security, health benefits, the ability to care for loved ones and more. This case originated from a political scheme by billionaire Bruce Rauner, governor of Illinois, to advance an agenda benefiting corporations and the wealthy. Rauner launched a political attack on public service workers immediately after taking office, filing a lawsuit on his own behalf to bar the collection of fair share fees by public service unions. A federal judge ruled that Rauner could not bring this action because he was not himself an employee paying fair share fees. But the legal arms of the National Right to Work Committee and the Liberty Justice Center were able to carry the case forward by finding plaintiffs as standins for Rauner in the federal lawsuit. The district court dismissed the case, based on long-standing precedent. The plaintiffs asked the lower court to fast-track their appeal and rule against them in order to more quickly get the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Unions work because we all pay our fair share and we all benefit from what we negotiate together. Fair share fees provide public service workers with the power in numbers they need to negotiate better wages, benefits and protections that improve work conditions and set standards for everyone. Each individual public service worker chooses whether or not to join a union, but the union is still required by law to represent and negotiate on behalf of all public service workers-- members and nonmembers alike. The corporate special interests behind this case want to take away the freedom of public service workers to have the power in numbers to provide for their families and make their communities stronger. That is why they want the Supreme Court to rule that workers can receive all the benefits of a union contract without contributing anything in return. Look at it this way: If you go out to dinner with a group of friends, you still pay your fair share of the check even if you didn't get to choose the restaurant. No one is forced to join a union and no one is forced to pay any fees that go to politics or political candidates. That is already the law of the land. Nothing in this case will change that. This case is about taking away the freedom of working people to come together, speak up for each other and build a better life for themselves and their families.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of an extraordinary constituent, Lisa Hansen. Lisa was an Air Force veteran, a longtime civil servant, and an inspiration to many as an ovarian cancer survivor. In the final years of her career, Lisa worked as a defense contractor at the legendary Arsenal in Watervliet, New York. During her 14-year battle with cancer, Lisa became an expert in cancer research and treatment. She used that knowledge and experience to become an advocate and a mentor to fellow survivors. Ovarian cancer will affect 1 in 75 women. There is no diagnostic tool for it. Raising awareness is one of the best and only ways to get women diagnosed sooner. Lisa made it her personal mission to reach as many women as possible in New York's capital region and beyond through her leadership at Caring Together, Inc. She also participated in the Survivors Teaching Students program, sharing personal experiences with medical and nursing students. Lisa passed away on January 6. We will remember her passion and selfless dedication to ovarian cancer research and the extraordinary power in her voice and in her story. Thank you for a lifetime of service to others, Lisa. You will be sorely missed, but thank you for the inspiration you have provided to so many.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Amsterdam radio legend, Sam Zurlo, on his retirement this week. For over 60 years, Sam's voice has greeted the residents and visitors of Montgomery County, New York. Sam has been working in broadcasting since 1953. Now at 82, he hosts the longest-running talk show in the history of the county. Sam's broadcasting career was born from his service with Armed Forces Radio in Germany, where he delivered a nightly broadcast for 3 years. Sam also worked as a print journalist for the Schenectady Gazette for some 35 years. Decade after decade, his distinctive voice has been the catalyst for free and open debate. He has brought an air of familiarity and of community to our humble corner of upstate New York. Listening to conversations about current events with Sam has always made the abstractions of politics a little more real. Sam's personality has inspired many and brought light, comfort, and connection to countless neighbors and friends. Mr. Speaker, I thank Sam Zurlo for his years of exceptional work and a legendary career in local journalism. I wish him the best for an equally special retirement.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor our former colleague and my friend Maurice Hinchey, who passed away last week. All told, Maurice served 18 years in the New York State Assembly and 20 years in the House. The story goes that after some youthful indiscretions, a judge gave him the option of joining the Navy or else . . . Following his Navy service, he returned home to Saugerties, New York and worked at a cement factory, and then as a toll collector on the New York State Thruway while earning his degree at SUNY New Paltz. He eventually ran and won a seat in the New York State Assembly in 1974, becoming the first Democrat to represent Ulster County since 1912. I had the privilege of serving with Maurice in both the State Assembly and Congress. As a freshman in the Assembly in the 1980s, I was assigned to serve on the Environmental Conservation Committee, which Maurice chaired. During that time, I saw firsthand as he worked to expose illegal waste dumping by organized crime, which led to many convictions. I saw him investigate toxic contamination of Love Canal in Niagara Falls, which would become the nation's first Superfund site. He passed hundreds of bills, including the nation's first acid rain law to protect New Yorkers from harmful pollution, especially in the Adirondacks, and the Hudson River Valley Greenway Act. Governor Mario Cuomo called him the ``environmental conscience of New York State.'' Maurice was elected to Congress in 1992, where he represented a serpentine district, from Poughkeepsie to Ithaca--including parts of the Hudson Valley, Catskill Mountains, and Southern Tier. It was a tough district with disparate interests, but you could not have found a more fitting representative than Maurice. No one was as equally as comfortable at a pool hall in Binghamton, a lecture hall in Cornell University, or one of Levon Helm's Midnight Rambles in Woodstock. Throughout his career, Maurice blended his progressive and populist beliefs in tireless support of America's working families. Maurice was a fighter--especially for the underdog, the voiceless, and the environment. He was a rare breed of politician--not a weathervane--he stuck to his convictions. He knew that the best choice was not always the easiest or most popular one. As a freshman in Congress, despite requests from the President, he opposed NAFTA, knowing it would result in the loss of American manufacturing jobs and suppress wages. He opposed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for fear that it would encourage media ownership consolidation. He opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagall because it would allow banks to become too big to fail and encourage riskier investment behavior. He opposed the unconstitutional, discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. Maurice knew it was just as wrong then as it is today. And he wasn't afraid to say so. He was a fierce and vocal opponent of the Iraq War. He had the courage and vision that many lacked to be on the right side of those issues when it mattered, when the votes were casts. He was on the losing side of those votes, but history has vindicated his positions. His passion and courage should serve as a model for anyone who enters public service. Maurice will be remembered most for being a champion of our environment. And I say our environment, because he believed without politics, without the efforts of so many engaged members of the public, there would not be conservation, or national parks, or wilderness. Only through acts of government and relentless advocacy have those national treasures been preserved to be cherished by all Americans. He led the effort to establish the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area and fought for the cleanup of PCBs that contaminated the river . . . He secured funding to rehabilitate an old railroad bridge that became the Walkway Over the Hudson, which has attracted millions of visitors since its opening. He supported renewable energy, and sought to prohibit oil and gas development in protected wilderness areas. That effort led him to work on requiring the disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and secure an EPA study on the impacts of fracking on drinking water. Every two years the Almanac of American Politics writes an entry for every Member of Congress. They tend to be fair and well-researched, but I take issue with one description of Maurice, where year after year he was described as a ``leader of lost causes.'' For 20 years in the House and 18 in the State Assembly, Maurice sought to give a voice to the voiceless and defend the weak against the powerful. These are tiring, uphill battles; often frustrating and always difficult, but he never thought they were lost; never hopeless. He believed in them, and so do I. We do not live in a perfect world, and we never will. There will always be those among us who are disadvantaged and in need. They will always need a champion, a Maurice Hinchey. Our nation needs leaders who will dedicate their lives to carrying the banner of these so-called ``lost causes'' and the courage to fight, even when it is hard. Maurice spent his life fighting for working and middle-class Americans and protecting the Hudson Valley and America's environment and natural beauty. He was one of the most principled and courageous public servants I have ever known. I want to express my deepest condolences to his wife, Ilene Marder Hinchey, and his children, Maurice, Joseph, and Michelle. In the last year of his life, Maurice and his family worked to raise awareness for frontotemporal degeneration. I hope his experience can help others understand this terrible condition. Rest in peace, Maurice.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life of Maurice Hinchey, a beloved friend and an awesome colleague. I entered into the New York State Assembly when he was the environmental conservation chair for the New York State Assembly. I witnessed his fight to expose toxic contamination of Love Canal where he worked against illegal waste dumping by organized crime. I watched as he worked so hard to protect the Catskills and the Adirondacks from acid rain. It was there that I witnessed his integrity, his intellect, his compassion, and his passion to make a difference. Then he came to Washington to serve this Nation. He worked hard to establish the Hudson River Valley Greenway. He worked hard to fight against PCB contamination of the Hudson River. He made certain that hydrofracking would not destroy our environment. He made certain that he spoke out against the Iraq war and spoke out against NAFTA and the damage it could do to American jobs. This was a person who was principled. He acted with those principles with every fiber of his being. Today I want to recognize that person, our voice for the environment, a principled individual that the late Governor Mario Cuomo called the environmental conscience of New York State. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Ilene Marder Hinchey; and his children, Reese, Josef, and Michelle. I know that, in the last year of his life, Maurice and his family worked to raise awareness for frontotemporal degeneration. I am hoping that their fight will continue so that others impacted by this disease will be able to conquer that situation. Maurice, rest in peace. You are a champion. We don't live in a perfect world, perhaps we never will. But those who are disadvantaged and those who are in need will need a champion. That champion was Maurice Hinchey, and he will continue to inspire.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, our ranker, who has done great work on this bill, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today represents what we can accomplish when we work together for the good of our local communities. My district includes the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk Rivers. These rivers were at the heart of our Nation's early industrialization. Along the river banks, factories manufactured carpets, collars, leather goods, and many other products. Many of those manufacturers have since left these mill towns, but the legacy of contaminated land continues, and many of those sites remain vacant. The contamination, or the perception of contamination, makes developers avoid investing in these very important parcels and properties. Assessing and remediating these sites is critical for environmental revitalization and economic redevelopment. The Brownfields Enhancement, Economic Redevelopment, and Reauthorization Act would improve an already successful EPA program. This legislation would reauthorize EPA's brownfields program, which expired in 2006. This would extend the program through 2022. Since 2002, with EPA's support, tens of thousands of acres of idle land have been made ready for productive use, increasing nearby property values and helping to preserve greenfields. These properties have been brought back onto local tax rolls, helping to support local economic development. In the process, more than 130,000 jobs have been created and some $24 billion has been leveraged from this Federal investment. Local governments are realizing that, through this program, we can turn a liability into a golden opportunity; but, unfortunately, there are many more sites yet to be assessed or remediated. More than 450,000 brownfields exist across our great country. Many of the easiest, low-hanging fruit sites have already been cleaned up. The more difficult ones will require more funding. In recognition of this, the bill increases the maximum individual grant from $200,000 to $500,000, which will enable more complex sites to be remediated. The bill creates multipurpose grants, enables nonprofits to receive grants, allows a small portion of grants to be used to cover administrative costs, and makes certain publically owned sites eligible for funding. These are important improvements to the program, supported by a wide array of stakeholders. Strengthening EPA's brownfields program will continue to create jobs, remediate contaminated land, and promote sustainable economic development. It is also a key factor in creating aesthetics for neighboring parcels, thereby enhancing the entire regional aspect of certain given regions across our communities. This reauthorization will give communities the resources, the capacity, and, indeed, the flexibility to turn more liabilities into opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the majority, including Mr. McKinley; Chairman Shimkus, who is the Environment Subcommittee chair; and Chairman Walden, who is the Energy and Commerce chair; as well as our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for working with us to produce this bipartisan bill, a golden opportunity for us to come together, work together, and accomplish. Finally, I want to thank the efforts of our Energy and Commerce ranker, Representative Frank Pallone. It was his great work that helped us get here also. I want to also acknowledge the tremendous work done by staff on both sides of the aisle. In particular, let me please recognize the efforts of Jackie Cohen, Rick Kessler, and Jeff Carroll, along with other members of the Energy and Commerce minority staff who worked so diligently on behalf of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Flying Horses of Troy High School football team for an extraordinary achievement: winning a second consecutive New York State Public High School Athletic Association Class AA State Championship. Troy's Flying Horses are the first team in section 2 history to accomplish back-to-back undefeated seasons and State championship wins. Their 41-26 championship win this past Sunday over an impressive Lancaster Legends team showed the dedication and heart of each and every one of the players, their families, and their coach--their supercoach--Bobby Burns. On behalf of countless proud fans and supporters throughout New York State's capital region, I wish the players great success in all of their future endeavors. I, again, congratulate them and salute their passion, their dedication, and their sportsmanship. They are, indeed, an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I would just say: Let's do this with our eyes wide open. Trickle-down isn't going to happen. Tax reform, this is not tax reform. Certainly, tax cuts where you aid the upper-income strata and corporations at the expense of an increase of taxes to the middle class is what this is about. It is pathetic. It is devastating. It is disastrous, and it ought to be denied.