Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is much talk of the impact the President has on this issue and that it is a one-person force driving this country in a given direction, but a memo has been brought to my attention from Cassandra Carmichael, Executive Director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, and the faith-based community, which incorporates several faiths, who have written very strongly about their belief that we need to move forward with climate change action. They are disappointed in the lack of foresight and leadership reflected in these two resolutions. They make it abundantly clear that their communities are on the front lines of issues like health care, disaster relief, refugee resettlement, and development work. These are all issues that are somewhat connected in the external measurements of the fight on climate change. They also talk about their beliefs that the Clean Power Plan is a solution that they have been advocating for over the course of many years, and that they believe that we can do this by assignment to the individual States, not imposing heavy economic pressure on some of our poorest neighborhoods, and that there is a way to be sound stewards of the environment and at the same time grow our economy. I believe that it is a very powerful statement that should motivate all of us to think twice about our actions here, that we should move forward in a progressive fashion. They indicate God's creation is sacred and that we are called on to be responsible stewards of the gifts of creation while protecting our vulnerable neighbors. It doesn't get stronger than that. So with that, I just think it needs to be brought into the discussion that it is not a one-person operation, a one-person show that is drawing us down this certain route of response to climate change but, rather, a large universe of support there that speaks to the wisdom of sound stewardship. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), who is a passionate voice on behalf of the environment and economic recovery.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the policies, I believe that the many, many hearings on the many issues, in a way, provide for a doable, workable plan. But opposition to a policy or just saying ``no'' isn't public policy. It isn't a strong response. It isn't a substantive response. To just disagree with what is being offered here without having viable solutions, without addressing carbon emissions, without speaking to the nuances of greening up our power supplies and growing energy independence, we are failing to respond in an effective manner. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), a very strong voice and progressive voice for the environment, who is strong in her beliefs about climate change.

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The whole effort to make certain that we move forward with carbon emission reduction and the claims that we have dropped since 2005 levels--well, there was a drop in 2008 and 2009 because of the recession, a wind-down of activity, of less use of electricity. But then, again, we had climbed in 2012 and 2013, the last measurements on record. So we need to be real about this effort. We know that if we do nothing we will see drops by 2040 of only 9 percent, when efforts here to make certain that we can reduce that carbon emission by 80 percent by 2050 are a strong contrast, and the goals here are laudable and noble. I would also make mention that we have it within our power to provide for issues that, with technology, enable us to respond to these goals. We need to do that. I think we need to set the standards in a way that pronounce our stewardship as very noble for the environment. Mr. Speaker, I again encourage us to reject these resolutions. I think they set us back. It would nullify opportunities to policy standards that would require stronger response. We would allow for build-out that provides for additional construction, additional pollution that would accompany that opportunity that would be dangerous to our environment. It would nullify our efforts to address carbon pollution, so that this is a dangerous thing, and I think it is why the President has indicated that, should they come to his desk, he would veto these measures, and why we are having this debate today while we should be championing the cause in a bipartisan, bicameral way to show the world that we care significantly about carbon emission reduction and that we want to stand as a world leader. That is where we should place ourselves and posit ourselves in that noble dimension. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), our distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who has led a fight for carbon emission and climate change on behalf of the Democrats in the House, and that he may control that time.

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

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

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are considering two resolutions today that are designed to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from moving forward with critical regulations to reduce carbon emissions from existing and new power plants. That previous resolution that was just aired in the House and now this resolution should be called exactly what they are, that being an attack on EPA's Clean Air Act authority. These resolutions would block this administration or any future administration from taking meaningful action to curb carbon emissions from our power plants. We have ample evidence from more than four decades' worth of clean air regulation that shows that a strong economy and strong environmental and public health protections do indeed go hand in hand. So let's stop promoting this false notion that we cannot improve the air we breathe while simultaneously growing our economy and, yes, creating jobs. The EPA's Clean Power Plan will promote public health. The EPA estimates that the Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon pollution from the power sector by 32 percent--32 percent--below 2005 levels. There will also be significant reductions in sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions. This is a tremendous public health victory. It will avoid thousands of premature deaths and an estimated 90,000 asthma attacks in children in 2030 alone. Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of the individuals, families, and communities that may have their jobs lost or displaced due to this energy transition. We share those concerns. I agree that these people who have dedicated their lives to providing us with reliable power deserve a lot more than a pink slip, but we do these people no favors by promising job security that the economy will no longer deliver. Instead of working together to find ways to ease the transition for States and communities that already are challenged by the many changes that are happening in the electric utility sector, we are spending time trying to turn back the clock. It cannot be done. EPA is a convenient scapegoat here, but the transition that is occurring is driven by much more than EPA regulations. Natural gas--its abundance and low price--is out-competing coal within the utility sector. Power plants are aging. Even more important, the economy has changed. Many of the older plants are located in areas that once had far more demand for electricity, demand from large manufacturing plants and heavy industry. Those factories have closed or modernized, both resulting in far less electricity use. There are new technologies. Wind and solar generation is growing, and those renewable energy sources have strong, broad-based, public support. Other technologies that enable the electric grid to be smarter, more flexible, and more resilient are being deployed now, and more are in development. State policies to encourage energy efficiency and to diversify energy sources are also driving this transition. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, was the transition from wire to wireless communication a war on copper? Was the transition to the automobile a war on horses? No, of course not. EPA's regulations are playing some role in driving the changes we see. That is true. But the Agency is doing what Congress directed it to do on behalf of all Americans: to act in defense of public health and to act in defense of our environment. Let's put aside the EPA scapegoating and have a real dialogue on our changing power sector and what can be done to support those working in impacted industries. Meanwhile, we are debating these resolutions as our negotiators are in Paris working on an international climate agreement. The bottom line is there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. Climate change is no longer a problem for future generations. We are already feeling its effects in every corner of our Nation and across the globe, which threaten our economic and our national security. The Clean Power Plan will play a significant role in the fight against climate change. The United States' action alone won't stop climate change, but action by the rest of the world without the United States' action also will not succeed. Other countries will have an excuse to delay action as long as the giant, the United States, does as well. This is the dynamic that has prevented us from action in the past. But now we have seen major commitments from the world's largest developed and developing nations. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Power Plan demonstrates United States leadership and is key to our effort to secure an ambitious and lasting international climate agreement. We cannot fool ourselves that the Clean Power Plan, an agreement in Paris, or any one action alone will solve all of our climate crises. But these rules will deliver substantial benefits to our society, and they will move us in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these resolutions. Let's work together in a meaningful strategy to address the problems that are emerging from the transition in our own electricity sector while promoting a cleaner, more sustainable Nation and growing significant jobs that are not yet on the radar screen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. I rise in support of this bill. S. 611, the Grassroots Rural and Small Community Water Systems Assistance Act, reauthorizes a small but important program that delivers technical assistance and training to our community water systems. I want to thank Representative Harper for introducing H.R. 2853, the House companion bill to Senator Wicker's bill, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation. I also want to thank Chairman Upton, our Ranking Member Pallone, Chairman Shimkus, and the Energy and Commerce staff for working with us on report language to clarify language in this bill so that we can indeed provide a wide range of technical assistance that would help small water systems, such as source water protection, system monitoring and efficiency, sustainability, and water security aspects. Many small and rural communities, with populations of 10,000 or less, face challenges in maintaining and upgrading aging water infrastructure. The ratepayer base for these small systems simply does not provide a sufficient operating budget to support full-time technical positions. Source water quality problems, resulting in system shutdowns and expensive treatment processes, are an increasing problem for far too many public water systems due to inadequate attention to nonpoint source pollution. In other areas, drought has affected both water quality and quantity, challenging the ability of water utilities to meet their basic service obligations. Technical assistance for small systems is essential to finding the most cost-effective solutions to these problems. I know that the Circuit Rider program in New York serves many small public water systems and provides essential technical support to small system operators. S. 611 would authorize the appropriation of $15 million annually, from 2016 to 2020, for the Environmental Protection Agency's program that provides technical assistance to these given systems. The previous authorization for this program expired back in 2003. It has been nearly 20 years since we last authorized this program, along with the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the SRF, the primary source of Federal funding for water infrastructure. The Drinking Water SRF's authorization also expired in 2003. It too needs to be reauthorized and at a higher level than was provided in 2003 to support all systems, small and large, to make the necessary repairs and the necessary upgrades. Across our country, we experience over 700 water main breaks per day--700 per day--breaks that result in losses of treated water, not just water that is lost in those breaks, but consumer tax dollars and rate dollars, and with a growing backlog of drinking water infrastructure needs, estimated at $384.2 billion over the next 20 years in the EPA's fifth national assessment of public water system infrastructure needs. That indeed is staggering. It is clear we should be doing much more to assist our States and water utilities to reduce this backlog. Recently we came together to pass a bipartisan, long-term surface transportation bill. It had the overwhelming bipartisan support of this House. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that our roads and bridges are in desperate need of investment. But we cannot forget about the hidden infrastructure, the critical, unseen, out-of-sight and out-of-mind infrastructure that we rely upon to deliver safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water. We have neglected this essential infrastructure for far too long already. It, too, needs more Federal funding and a long-term reauthorization. Infrastructure does not repair itself. It does not improve with age. Our inaction is only adding to the expenses of State and local governments and forcing increases in water utility rates for given consumers. Mr. Speaker, S. 611 is a good bill and a good start. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, but I hope we use this opportunity as a challenge, as a challenge to recognize that this is just the beginning of the drinking water infrastructure issues that we face. We must come together to reauthorize the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support and optimism for the U.N. Climate Change Conference, or COP 21, which will be held in Paris next month. In advance of the negotiations, 146 parties submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, laying out the actions they intend to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These pledges cover 86 percent of global emissions. We have seen major commitments from the United States, the European Union, China, and other major developing nations. We have also seen incredible support from the private sector. Many companies, including dozens of Fortune 500 companies, have made commitments to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge. Many businesses recognize that acting on climate change is not only the morally right thing to do, but the economically right thing to do, also. An agreement in Paris would be an incredible first step that could be built upon with even more ambitious goals in the coming years because the bottom line in climate change is too big to tackle alone. We need global cooperation from governments and businesses, and the United States must be a leader, demanding bold action to take on the very real threats we face. An agreement in Paris is good for our national security, our economy, and our environment. I wish good luck to our negotiating team.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the Ex-Im Bank. Hundreds of families in New York's Capital Region face uncertainty after one of the largest employers had to move jobs to France because its contracts needed a government-backed loan guarantee that the Ex-Im Bank would have provided. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their leadership. It is too bad that it took procedural gymnastics to finally receive a vote on a bill with such broad, bipartisan support. Look what we can accomplish when we work together to do what is best for the thousands of people we each represent in this body. The Export-Import Bank equals jobs. Let's get it done. Let's put people before politics.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, and in particular I oppose H.R. 702. Apparently, we have learned nothing over the past 40 years because this bill asks that we forget about oil shortages, oil recessions, and painfully high energy bills. Do we really believe that the days of $100 per barrel of oil are gone? Do we really believe that our military will never again be called upon to keep vital oil trade routes or production areas open? I wish that were true, but I doubt it. Until we reduce our dependence on oil, we should retain control over our domestic oil resources. Our Nation is not energy independent. We still use a great deal of oil and other petroleum products. Our transportation sector is still extremely vulnerable to price increases, whether we are talking about certainly individual drivers, certainly our airlines or freight companies. Our manufacturing sector is vulnerable, also. China may now be the largest importer of oil, but we are still the world's largest consumer of oil. This policy is not just about whether we open up trade on another commodity. It is a matter of national security and economic security. It is in our national interest that we can and do export crude oil and refined petroleum products now. When we export refined products, we gain the extra benefit of jobs in the refining industry as well as those in oil production. This bill eliminates Presidential authority to restrict trade in crude oil. It allows decisions about oil exports to be made by the oil companies, and they put a higher value on their profits than on our national security, our United States consumers, or our environment. The oil companies see this window of low global oil prices as the opportunity to lift the ban on crude exports. The advocates for this policy point to the current slowdown in new drilling activity as evidence that our export policy is eliminating jobs in oil production. The fact remains that oil is a global commodity and the global market price for a barrel of oil is no better than the price here in the United States. When oil is under $50 per barrel, wells that are marginal or with higher costs will be capped until the price rises. That situation will not change by exporting to any already oversupplied global market. But what happens when Asia's demand for oil increases, as it surely will, and the global price again climbs into the $100 per barrel range? That is an excellent opportunity to sell as much as possible on the global market, a windfall for the oil companies and an economic downturn for us. This policy change benefits a few of the wealthiest companies on this planet. There is no benefit for consumers. We will put our national security at risk, and certainly jobs and infrastructure in the refining industry and other industries as well will be hurt. Exports of oil, in fact, and any of our strategically important resources should be in our national interest. Big Oil gets more than their share of subsidy from the United States' taxpayers. They do not need this additional windfall, and consumers and taxpayers cannot-- simply cannot--afford to provide it. I urge you to reject this rule and to oppose H.R. 702.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, our neighbors in the Senate have introduced and agreed to a resolution that recognizes Thursday, October 8, as National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day. I invite my colleagues to support this commemoration and affirm our resolution to bettering our Nation, our economy, and, certainly, our environment. As the planet's most abundant natural resource, hydrogen has a critical role to play in the way we think about renewable energy. It is already powering homes and vehicles across our Nation and has the potential to do even more if we recognize that energy efficiency should be our fuel of choice. Businesses are already reporting success stories about their use of hydrogen fuel cells and the elimination of carbon emissions. The once pricey and seemingly unfeasible source has now become a practical avenue for America's energy demand, and it is because we invested in that unique American innovative spirit and made it so. We should learn from this and apply that attitude to other corners in our energy sector. Our Nation is projected to increase its energy consumption through 2040, and climate change is certainly a reality. We have no choice but to face that head-on. Please join me as we strive to make America the leading nation for renewable energy, a goal we can advance right now by recognizing this day as National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Day.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota. We have very little time remaining, so we are going to reach to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to offer a close here. We thank Representative Lipinski for joining us this evening on a very important topic. Thank you for your strong voice in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. TONKO. You are most welcome. I thank the gentlewoman from New York for lending her voice to this discussion. As was made mention by the gentlewoman from New York, many small businesses, startups, innovative types, entrepreneurs, and medium-sized businesses utilize the Export-Import Bank. This is not just a tool for large industry. When we look at something like GE, when people say: ``Well, doesn't a large business, an industry like that, sit upon enough funds to make this happen, to make this contract work?'' they required for this contract on which they bid to have a government creditor to back up this bid. That means the Export-Import Bank. There are certain elements of this concept that are utilized for different contracts, and in this case, the government creditor status of the Export-Import Bank made the deal possible for GE. So, with that, we now move to a good friend, a very rigorous voice for his constituents in Minnesota and a very aggressive voice for job creation across this country. Representative Nolan, thank you for joining us for this Special Order. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, undeniably, the issue that we hear about the most in our districts across America is the need to create a climate that grows jobs to allow the dignity of work to be realized by our constituents and to enable them to earn a sound paycheck. We can ill-afford to play games with the jobs agenda. We need to do everything within our power to be able to provide for those resources and develop those policies that will create that climate that grows private sector jobs and enables public sector jobs to administer the services that we require as a Nation. For years, I have been coming to this floor, speaking with great fervor about the Make It In America agenda, making certain that we take great pride in that opportunity that we, as a Nation, have always embraced: the pioneer spirit, the innovation that challenges us today. That Make It In America agenda has many, many needs. I have spoken to the need for implementing sound manufacturing policies, retrofitting our centers of employment, our manufacturing centers, so that they can compete with cutting-edge technology on their side. I have advanced the concern and the issue of funding research, making certain that we do things smarter, which will enable us to be more competitive in those economic sweepstakes on an international scale. I have focused on STEM education, making certain in this innovation economy that we have those scientists, technology-driven types, engineers, math majors, that can take us forward with the sort of skills and talent that we require. I have talked about improving our infrastructure to make certain that commerce's demands for sound infrastructure will be met so that they can ship their products and transport their products. I have talked about the need to grow our exports as a Nation. Well, I believe this can be boiled down to a simple message. The idea is to make more, use less, and sell it everywhere, in other words, promote domestic manufacturing, enhance our efficiency--energy efficiency and, across the board, all types of efficiency--and then enable us to then export American-made goods. Well, this trio has been hindered of late because of a refusal to reauthorize in this House the Export-Import Bank, which is a great service that allows for loans, loan guarantees, and can stand as an insurance policy, a government creditor, for contracts when bid upon by our private sector industries and businesses. That damage, that delay, had been troublesome. I have come to this floor many times. I have joined with my colleagues in press conferences. I have invoked our leadership to bring the measure to the floor because I think, if we do, it passes. I have talked also about signing on. I have signed onto petitions to discharge, to make certain, again, that we raise the public consciousness to this growing concern of lacking the reauthorization of our Export-Import Bank. Well, the damage came and hit my district. I would say to America we in Congress, this House and its leadership, are playing with fire because now we have a major corporation--in this case, GE in my district--that will be transitioning hundreds, 500 or more, jobs to France because of the lack of an Export-Import Bank here. There are some 84, 85 Export-Import Banks around the world. Some 60- plus nations have this concept at their grasp. So the French Government has authorized the Export-Import Bank to be utilized by GE. Now I witness hundreds of jobs in my own district that will be transferred to another set of workers, damaging the American Dream of people that I represent. This is unthinkable, unthinkable. This could be avoided. All it takes is a simple exercise to bring an issue to the floor, bring the bill to the floor, of which I am a cosponsor, and act on it. I believe wholeheartedly that, in a bipartisan fashion, that measure would pass. So tonight we are going to use these minutes to advocate for the Export-Import Bank, to have that vote brought to the floor. We will begin with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is a friend, a leader in our House, and is our minority whip. Representative Steny Hoyer, thank you for joining us this evening.

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for joining us on this very important topic. Finally, we will go to the gentlewoman from Ohio, (Ms. Kaptur), who is such a strong voice for American jobs, American workers, and hits hard at that agenda. It is not surprising to see you on the floor to join us in this effort. Welcome, Representative Kaptur.

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for her insight and her powerful statement. It is very clear, it is very straightforward: support American workers; support small business; support exporting of American manufactured goods; support industry. Let's grow our economy. We are going to close with a very forceful voice, one with great passion, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who also has been impacted by this failure to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Representative Moore, thank you so much. It is an honor to serve with you. Thank you for being here.

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his voice on this issue. It is clear that the Democrats in this House are staunchly for reauthorization of this concept. When people talk about the tools in the toolkit that are required, growing exports is a very important part of the equation for economic recovery and economic growth. This concept of an Export-Import Bank reduces the deficit by some $675 million, at last annual count, and grows jobs to the tune of 164,000, per the last count. So reduce the deficit and grow jobs; isn't that the mantra that we hear time and time again from folks who represent all of America in this House of Representatives? It stands to reason that we bring the bill to the floor for a vote. America should not tolerate this. The business community, the commerce voices of this Nation, from chambers of commerce across this country is resonating with we the Democrats in this House. We need reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. What don't we understand? Let's go forward and encourage that that vote be taken very, very soon. One of the people that I get to serve with is a longtime friend. We have served in the New York State Assembly together, and we now serve here in the United States House of Representatives together. We have been very concerned about job growth in New York State and, in particular, along that manufacturing corridor called the Erie Canal which gave birth to a number of mill towns that then became epicenters of invention and innovation. Today they stand as inspiration as to how to speak to that pioneer spirit that is within our DNA as a nation. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my good friend. Thank you for sharing your thoughts this evening. Thank you for joining us.

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin. We have exhausted our time here this afternoon, but I will state clearly, we cannot afford to dull the competitive edge of American business, American industry. We cannot afford to impact negatively the American worker. We should not suffocate the American Dream simply by this recalcitrance, this determination to shut down an Export-Import Bank that has helped as a tool in the toolkit. Allow us to be strong. Allow us to be competitive, robustly competitive. Reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. The damage is already beginning to hit home across this great Nation. We must do better. The American worker deserves our support. American business and industry deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, this week, one of the largest employers in my district, General Electric, announced it would be cutting hundreds of jobs nationwide due to Congress'--due to the leadership in this House-- inability to renew the Export-Import Bank. This politics over people and Republican dysfunction has plagued this body since the GOP won the majority. It has led to a government shutdown, obsession with blocking the President at every turn, and now a loss of hundreds of jobs in my district, Schenectady, New York. The blame game is played all too often in Washington and at the desks of cable news pundits. This, however, is a fact: hundreds of jobs in my district are gone because Republican House leadership decided it was more important to appease the extreme conservative flank of their own party than to renew an agency that creates jobs while cutting the deficit. As the Albany Times-Union accurately phrased it: ``This is the price tag of a Congress ruled by drown-government-in-the-bathtub ideologues who have no regard for facts: 500 American jobs bound for France, Hungary, and China.'' I invite anyone in this body to visit Schenectady, New York. There, they will find families that work hard and play by the rules and don't expect a handout. In this case, a dysfunctional Congress shut down a program that lost families in my district their jobs. That is morally reprehensible and completely unacceptable. Let's do our job and not have other people lose their job because of inaction in this House.

Mr. TONKO

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