Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the importance of the ambitious investment in water infrastructure in every community across our great Nation. I recently wrapped up a tour of several water systems in upstate New York, and what I saw was infrastructure in urgent need of attention-- broken pipes, flooded communities, and a lack of technical support for our municipalities. I have spoken with colleagues on both sides of the aisle here in the House, and I have heard similar problems. We as a Nation must always keep an eye on our debt and on our deficits, both current and those years down the road. To that end, we must realize that investment is needed now to save dollars in the decades to come. We live in a world in which we upgrade our phones, our TVs, our cars, and other personal items almost every 2 years. It is time to apply that same mentality to the delivery systems that move around our most precious commodity--water. To my colleagues who haven't already done so, I urge them to get involved in this issue within their own communities because it is not just H20 flooding out of those broken pipes just under our feet; it is water plus taxpayer dollars--hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, we are going to use these 30 minutes to speak to fast track and a process on trade agreements that are developed. I believe it is so important for the American public to understand exactly what fast track is all about. General Leave

Mr. TONKO. You are fine, Representative Kaptur. I thank you for contributing, as you always do in such meaningful measure. I think you agree with me--I am certain you do--that Congress and the American workers deserve a meaningful role in these debates to make sure that our trade policy reflects our values as a country, as a people; and those include middle class prosperity, workers' rights, consumer safety, and environmental sustainability. When we have those rights guaranteed, when we have those ideals protected and advanced and enhanced, we are a great, great nation that comes out of trade negotiations even more powerful. We are a great nation; we need to stay great. We can't give away all of these golden opportunities simply by trade agreements that are unfair that provide an unlevel playing field for the American worker. It is about those values that we are meeting tonight, speaking tonight, advocating tonight, and encouraging that hope be brought to each and every worker and working family out there across this great Nation in a way that reflects a sound bit of dialogue on this House floor.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you so much, Representative Kaptur. Let's move forward with socioeconomic environmental justice, where we can grow this Nation and job opportunities and undo those trade deficits. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. You use that technical term, I have used it, ``currency manipulation,'' over and over. Let's just throw an example out there. It is a $6,000 edge for a competing automobile imported into this Nation against what is produced by our home-driven auto industry. Well, that is going to upset the whole economy. It is going to impact consumers. So currency manipulation is given a $6,000 edge. It is like giving them a check saying: Put more conditions or more opportunities into the consumer's pocket to buy more features on a car. Of course, $6,000 is going to speak to their senses, so we need currency manipulation to provide for fair trade. As you indicated, we are all for trade but not this manipulation that has hurt the American working families. We have Representative Kaptur here, and I believe we have about 5 minutes remaining. Representative Kaptur, I yield to you to share your thoughts because this is so important an issue. Again, I thank both of my colleagues for joining us here this evening and Representative Slaughter for sending in written comment that can be incorporated. Thank you, Representative DeLauro. Representative Kaptur, please share with us your thoughts.

Mr. TONKO. Or killed. We have got documentation of how many union activists have been murdered and how many of those issues have been resolved, how many of those reviews by the judicial process or whatever system in their country would prosecute. None of these--very few have been resolved. So it is not just the economic consequences. It is the social injustice that we can allow with these contracts. So I thank you. I know we have been joined by Ms. Kaptur.

Mr. TONKO. As you pointed out, trade deficits have put the biggest dent into the American economy, and if we continue this, those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. And what we have here is an opportunity to learn from history that there have been all these negative outcomes. We have flattened if not gone south with the middle class income all because we have sent out of our country's borders these sound manufacturing jobs. You talked about all these impacts, and I know where your heart is on social and economic justice. What are we doing to people with the four TPP negotiating partners in Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, and Peru? We are using forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards as reported by the United States Department of Labor in their report of List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor. We have situations where there are not unions allowed in Vietnam, a communist country. If it is allowed, they can't speak outside of these given standards. If they do, they are persecuted or jailed.

Mr. TONKO. A great number of us Democrats in this House have come together saying we are for growing paychecks and we want to strengthen that paycheck. We have stood for increasing the minimum wage, but we talk about the median wage. Let's strengthen that. Let's make certain there is an opportunity to say: Here is how it could be better; here is what you are skipping. You are walking past the currency manipulation issue, which is one of the biggest concerns right now.

Mr. TONKO. Well, Representative DeLauro, let me just state that the people of Connecticut are so fortunate to have you bring your voice to this Chamber to speak so effectively and so nobly for the workers of this country. People of this country beyond Connecticut prosper from your advocacy and your passion. We respect that. All people who are tuned into this discussion, those who have heard about it in other dialogue, need to call their Representatives: Where are you on fast track?

Mr. TONKO. Tonight we are here to discuss, as I indicated, Trade Promotion Authority, most commonly known as fast track. Free trade agreements that would be accompanied by a fast-track process are a way to bring about devastating outcomes, if not done correctly, to the American economy and, most importantly, to the American worker. Of late, most notably, the free trade agreement of which there is much concern expressed is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP, which, by the way, would speak to a great number of nations which encompass about 40 percent of the international GDP. So it is no small compact here of which we speak. Fast track, as a concept, would constrain Congress' ability to conduct oversight, restrain oversight that Congress should provide so as to be the voice of the people who elect them, to place their given concerns in the discussions here in the House. It would delegate Congress' constitutional authority over trade policy in a way that would provide for no solid debate, no sharply restricting debate, and it would prohibit amendments. Basically, Congress would be limited to a simple up-or-down vote--thumbs up, thumbs down--on what could be a devastating outcome for the American economy and, most importantly, the American worker. These so-called free trade agreements have far-reaching impacts on American life. They may address dynamics like food safety or affordable medicine or financial regulations. So we cannot be reckless in our attempt, and we must make certain that we move forward deliberately to make certain that it is a good outcome for trade. We are not against trade. Free trade, as it has been described in the past and agreed to in the past, has hurt the economy, but we want fair trade. In exchange for fast-tracking bills, Congress is supposed to set these negotiating objectives. But let's face it: sadly, these objectives are nonbinding, so they could be rendered meaningless. And in the case of the TPP, which is nearly completed, setting them at this point is somewhat late in the process. We know also that the TPP is going to model itself after NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement that dealt with Canada and Mexico, and also the Korean agreement. And the bottom line is, those deals have not been good for the American middle class, for working families. Certainly we would be giving up a golden opportunity to exercise our responsibilities here in Congress to make certain it is the best outcome for America. Promises of new jobs here in the U.S. are one of those promises for which we take great concern. Decreased trade deficits--it can be said that trade deficits have provided the greatest dent in the American economy. There are huge deficits that have staggered the efforts to grow American jobs and improve labor and environmental standards. These are promises that have failed: jobs to be produced, environmental standards and labor standards never really come to be. Even if they are written on paper with the enforcement requirements, they have not reached their potential. And certainly the job count is not what it should be. As we lost manufacturing jobs, millions of manufacturing jobs, one in every four manufacturing jobs, it was a devastating outcome. Three of every five American workers who lost those manufacturing jobs ended up with pay cuts, and one of three of those in the three-out-of-five category ended up with more than 20 percent of a paycheck reduction. This is not what we want in the order of progressive policies that will speak to a stronger economy. So I have grave concern for the fast- track process. Those joining us tonight and those like the gentlewoman from New York, Representative Slaughter, who will share her thoughts in writing, which will be incorporated in the annals of these proceedings, for this Special Order, these are Members who are very concerned. And chief amongst them, the one who has led us in this effort to draw public awareness and political attention to this issue, is none other than Representative Rosa DeLauro, our colleague from Connecticut, who has done a solid job in bringing to everyone's awareness, attention, that the fast-track process is the first step in a process that could be devastating, as we authorize this Trans-Pacific Partnership, with the potential for job loss that we can ill afford, with the potential for abuse of children in the labor force, and beckoning us to bring about a situation that finds Vietnamese workers, for instance, working for 50 to 55 cents, 56 cents, perhaps, an hour. It is dumbing down, it is weakening the workforce across the world as we lose these American jobs. So Representative DeLauro, it is great to have you on the floor. It is great to have you join us in this Special Order. Please share with us your passion, your concern for what could happen here to the American worker.

Mr. TONKO. I also ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. There certainly is.

Mr. TONKO. We are proud of any Make It In America provisions. Let me thank you, first and foremost, for bringing together Representatives like Congresswoman Bass and you always at the helm to lead us into discussions at the soundness of investment, in infrastructure, that is required for a modern-day society, for commerce to function, for economic recovery sake. We need to include infrastructure as a bit of the formula that takes us to the maximum outcome for producing jobs. I think any of us comprehends how investment and infrastructure equates to job creation. It is an easy exercise to relate to the skilled set of labor that is required to build these bits of infrastructure, but it is in the millions that we can strike in terms of added jobs and certainly a bolstering of our regional economies and certainly our national economy. This one is a no-brainer. It makes sense across the board to invest in what is crumbling infrastructure, improving those deficit-rated bridges, deficient bridges, and to be able to provide for the sort of vision that we as a nation require, this Nation requires, in order to move forward on a path of soundness. The siloing that needs to take place--or can take place, perhaps better said--is a frightening thing. We need to look at this infrastructure improvement through that silo, through certainly the opportunities for economic recovery, the environmental policies, the energy policies. If we can move forward with these investments, encourage American- made manufactured goods and products for these projects, and then also see the soundness of putting together multimodal concepts where we bring together, through a sense of planning, all of the modes of transportation so that they are put into a hub concept where we are putting together the best energy outcome and that constantly working in that silo mentality that doesn't produce the results that will be most beneficial to all of us and for generations that will follow. I think that we need to understand that we improve our bridges, we structure new where it is required; we don't continue to build to capacity without the element of rail opportunity that can remove some of those cars from the highway. Energy efficiency is a common factor with rail transportation. It is the most energy-efficient mode of travel. If we can invest in rail and then incorporate that with soundness of transportation and infrastructure so that we are not building where it is not essential, where it can be avoided by multimodal concepts, we will then have the best product. All of this is focused on the needs of a modern-day society. When we have seen the crumbling of infrastructure, where we have put on the back burner maintenance and repair and improvements, it begins to catch up with the budgetary thinking here, and we develop crises that require huge outlays of money. It is important for us to move now as urgent as we can, as quickly as we can, to invest in our infrastructure, in our roads, and our bridges. I have looked at the needs within my district. They are there; they are very heavy. The impact on consumers with faulty roads, with less than acceptable infrastructure, is costly to the individual motorists. That is in terms of repair and maintenance of your vehicle; it is in terms of idle time where there are traffic jams related to, again, a need for infrastructure that is soundly developed through a sense of planning where we look at all modes of transportation. We have seen other nations begin to leapfrog past where we are at. We have instructed developing nations on how best to build their infrastructure, not just transportation roads and bridges and the traditional transportation infrastructure, but with utilities, with communications wiring, with all sorts of opportunities in water and sewer. We can advise, but we need to take our own advice as a nation and begin the investment in what is soundly a strengthener of commerce, public safety, and quality of life issue for all of us, individuals and families in this country. This is a golden opportunity. This is a way to put people to work. It is a way to purchase American-made goods that are, again, producing jobs in their manufacturing centers. It is a way to embrace sound planning. It is a way to be a better steward of the environment. It is a way to be energy smart in the outcome. All of this can be taken care of if we do this incorporated sense of thinking, a collaborative model that doesn't silo us to the tomorrows of our society, but builds on a pathway to soundest investment, to most efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars. People want safe roads. They want safe bridges. They want the modern convenience of utility infrastructure and communication infrastructure. They want the soundness of thinking that a company's water, drinking water, and water and sewer infrastructure are sound. Representative Garamendi, you are on the west coast. I am the country span away on the east coast.

Mr. TONKO. We are sitting on very aged infrastructure, and it is important for us to recognize that fact. There is a life expectancy that, when met, begins a huge crumbling of the infrastructure. We need to acknowledge that fact. We need to acknowledge the fact that the soundness of workers skilled, trained, prepared, ready to do this work can be put into meaningful work opportunities, and we can get, again, the pathway to soundness of commerce and quality of life addressed in a very reasonable fashion.

Mr. TONKO. I couldn't agree more. I think what we can do to supplement efforts in individual States is so critical right now because the need is so in demand. When I talk about this, I hear from your counterparts in California about the huge loss of water they had with some of the water main breaks. Again, it is the water; it is the dollars; it is the electrons that are flowing right by us. I have heard from Representatives from Texas, from those in Maryland, from those in the Northeast--New England and the Northeast--all saying it is about time. We need to do something here. My gosh. We have wooden pipes serving some communities. It is out of sight, out of mind. It is beneath that surface, and we are just believing that the water supply will be there and that the pipes will last forever. We know that the acidic quality of soils will wear the pipes from the outside and that the velocity will wear the pipes from the inside. They will not last forever. It is important for us to make certain that we communicate well, establish that dialogue with the water maintenance crews at all levels in our home States and have them instruct us as the first line of that service delivery system and say, Hey, this is the situation. These are the conditions. These are the needs. And let us go forward with this infrastructure discussion that fully incorporates all of the elements of infrastructure--from the safety of our roads and bridges to the advanced investment in ports and rail, to communications to utilities. We have monopoly designed settings now wheeling electrons from region to region, State to State, nation to nation, nations to the U.S. All of this needs to be broadened in terms of the dialogue that we share and develop. We need to understand that we are at a cutting edge where, in this century now, we need to upgrade because of new opportunities or upgrade because of aged infrastructure. It begins with the soundness of planning, and it is why I enjoy these discussions with you where we can ignite, so to speak, that thinking at home and, certainly, amongst our colleagues here in the House and down the hall in the Senate to make certain that we are just avidly supportive of going forward with a progressive order of policies that will speak to these infrastructure needs and where we allocate the resources that are going to respond effectively to the given situation at hand. It is within our grasp. The bottom line is it produces jobs--millions of jobs--all while addressing safety and quality of life and commerce opportunity.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Certainly, it is an honor to join with you and our colleagues this evening, as so many have come to the floor to speak to the soundness of infrastructure. We have talked about the present moment. We have talked about being inspired by the past, but let's look to the future. Not only do we owe it to the present moment to embark upon some of the newest options, alternatives, and innovative concepts, but what about the impact on future generations? If we don't do what is required of us in this present moment, we are saying that we are willing to survive on that fat of the land, that we take all of that thoughtfulness and all of the sense of progress and the pioneer attitude of generations before us who said: We are going to leave a sound bit of infrastructure, and we are going to know that we did the most we could in our moment so that generations to follow will be able to live--and live strongly--and be able to prosper from that and perhaps further stretch the thinking of America. Well, we haven't done that. We have taken that opportunity and utilized it in a way that serves our present-moment needs. The neglect here, I think the sinfulness of this outcome, the moral compass that should guide us is that you leave a better world for those to come. The payment mechanism isn't going to get cheaper. We know that. The need is inordinately high. The sense of vision that we need to share as leaders of a nation that is so great as the U.S. needs to provide for a soundness of planning and cutting-edge opportunities and an infrastructure that is strong and vibrant that allows for job creation, for commerce and its needs, for public safety, for individuals and families across this country. Representative Garamendi, this has been a very sound way to share with people across the country what the thinking is of the Democrats in the House. The Democrats believe in the soundness of infrastructure. They believe in investing in jobs. They believe in investing in a better tomorrow, investing where you rightly anticipate lucrative dividends--lucrative dividends. It is not spending foolishly. It is investing soundly in a way that speaks to documented need and then encourages and inspires us to speak in bold terms that will take us to cutting-edge opportunities that we will leverage in the present moment so that generations to follow will say: They got it, they tackled the problem, they responded to the challenge, they were bold in their attempt. Let's leave that as our message. Let's leave that as our legacy. I thank you for the opportunity here this evening.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. Again, the aged infrastructure is one factor; the new development, innovation, cutting-edge, high-tech opportunities that are not embraced, not incorporated into the infrastructure that we currently require--these are two major driving factors as to why we should be aggressive in our pursuit of infrastructure resources. There are those, ourselves included, who embrace an infrastructure bank bill, making certain that we can get more for the dollar, that we can leverage and stretch the commitments that we make to reach more projects. You talked about water infrastructure. I am seated on the Energy and Commerce Committee and am ranker on the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, so it is an appropriate place to review and to further inspect the state of our drinking water infrastructure. In the last district work period just completed, I began with my crew at home the initial steps, with tours, of reviewing the water infrastructure that serves the communities that I represent. In Schenectady, New York, which is a town of about 60,000 individuals, we have some 240 miles of pipe in one community. That pipe may be as old as 100-plus years. The main feeds are 36-inch and 24-inch pipes. When you look at all of this infrastructure, knowing that the replacement factor is going to come, isn't it a better thing to plan how we are going to share those resources with communities? This is understanding that when we have a water main break--and we witnessed many of those during the very harsh winter that the Northeast of the country faced this year, and a number of the frost heaves are now busting this infrastructure. When we have some of these major breaks and when you see the water flowing from that location, it is not just water that is flowing by; it is dollars and it is electrons, because it took immense amounts of electricity, energy supplies, to treat that water. It took tons of taxpayer dollars to make certain that it is acceptable in its form for consumption, drinking water, and, of course, it is the water wasted. So we need to see this as a way to save water, to save dollars, to save energy, and why not incorporate into this discussion all of those elements that speak to drinking water needs in this country? You have seen too many opportunities or impacts on communities where they have had this ``boil water'' provision for days, if not weeks. You see it around the country. People are getting impacted, again, with this infrastructure that is so old, and it is in need of repair. We are sitting on not only pipes in the ground but well systems, the infrastructure, the computers, the workforce that is required. Are we training the appropriate workforce to pick up in these areas who have high levels of certification? The know-how is immense, and the responsibility is awesome. There is the human infrastructure. There is the training. There is the planning that is required and, certainly, the outstanding need for the soundness of all of the system that brings you from that aquifer, that water source, into the business place or the home place. This is something that we are going to further explore because we know there is an inordinate need, and we want to put together a sound plan that is thoughtful and reaches to the expected--the projected-- needs and offers the assistance to local governments, which is so essential.

Mr. TONKO. Well, interestingly, when I was on a recent trip south of D.C., into the southeast of the U.S., I got to tour a brand-new car that is a luggage car, storage car, includes racks for bikes, all sorts of storage done on that car itself, and proudly they wanted to share with me it is made in Elmira, New York, in upstate New York, state-of- the-art design, brand new vehicle, just put on, I believe, that week that I was on the train. So, you are right, this translates into jobs of all orders, from manufacturing of these cars, these train cars, to innovation and research that is required, for instance, in our electric utility infrastructure. But, you know, I think Delegate Holmes Norton struck something that should speak to our senses, and that is history dictating to us when we were at our best. When we had this dip in our economy, when we were in post-Depression, when we needed to recover, we invested in jobs; we invested in infrastructure. My gosh, you look at the buildings that came through those late 1920s and 1930s that are still standing, not only solid as a rock, but tremendously designed and great bits of architecture that speak to a great bit of cityscape in our communities that really added to the look of the community. And we can take it back even before that in the history of our time when, as we have talked on this floor before, the Erie Canal, barge canal, was constructed. It was done at a time when Governor DeWitt Clinton had this goal--and the economy was in tough shape, too--and so he drove this idea through tough times when people said we can't afford it. And elements in history, chapters in history repeatedly remind us, you know, we are replete with these anecdotal bits of evidence that tell us, when things were really tough, when the economy was really, really weak, we went and pulled ourselves out of those pits, those financial downfalls, and did it through investment in infrastructure. Here we not only have an opportunity to pull us up and have a stronger economic response, but it is also enabling us to utilize the intellectual capacity of this great country that grows innovation, grows ideas, new concepts, research on lighter weight materials that can make our renewable energy supplies all the greater, where the bang for the buck is all the stronger. So there are elements galore that speak to an effective bit of planning that can take us through these tough economic times, respond to this crumbling nature of infrastructure or the need to build the new state-of-the-art elements into our Nation, be it communication, utility, transportation-wise or water and sewer-wise. There are golden opportunities to add to the workforce and then utilize the best opportunities out there, technologically, that have been developed through the soundness of American know-how, American ingenuity. So this gives birth. This gives--it coaxes from us the strength that we have as a nation to rely on that creative pioneer spirit that builds America in the truest form and fashion. So coaxing that kind of activity, America needs to be coaxed by that, pushed to embrace the pioneer spirit. Go forward with these opportunities to make us a strong, strong voice that will resonate with all communities across this country because they know that need for infrastructure is strong. It is really beckoning our leadership to go forward and commit to the soundness of that infrastructure investment, and we see it in so many aspects of the work done here.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, our Vice President, Joe Biden, once said: ``Don't tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.'' This body's routine budgeting practices have faded away in the last 4 years only to be replaced by partisan bickering that uses austere budgets as messaging tools. These budgets invariably go nowhere, while the most vulnerable individuals and families in our communities see their needs grow larger and their potential to make their own success grow smaller. Our national priorities should be simple enough: public investment in quality education accessible by every student, infrastructure, job training programs, research, and a national energy policy that encourages innovation and new jobs. The strategy we have seen of cutting our way to prosperity simply does not work. The more we do it, the more we cut ourselves down while more nations pass us by. As we work our way through the 2016 budgeting process, instead of telling our constituents our values, let's show them what we value by producing an ambitious budget that creates opportunity for our American middle class and those struggling to enter it or to stay in it.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 107, I was absent while attending a funeral in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up H.R. 861, the clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill that would keep the Department open so that it can carry out its mission of keeping the American people safe.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, this being National Engineers Week, I rise to recognize the importance of STEM education and training for our future engineers. It has been projected that our Nation will need almost 2 million engineers by 2018, and that some fields in engineering will experience a 30 to 70 percent growth during that timeframe. Despite these critical workforce needs, a vast majority of schools do not offer K through 12 education that creates clear pathways into careers in engineering and STEM-related feeds. This week, I visited Tech Valley High School in Albany, New York, in the 20th District, to highlight this need and celebrate the good work being done in my congressional district to close the skills gap we see in this very vital discipline. The nations that lead the global economy of the future will be those that invest in the education of their next generation--particularly in engineering. I urge my colleagues to recognize this need and to work in their own communities to bolster engineering education nationwide and allow our Nation to become the kingpin of the future international economy. Let's grow and cultivate those engineers.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to utilize the time allotted to the Democrats in the House to speak to the issue of trade. There are many who see this issue as an important issue. Others are now beginning to understand some of the dynamics as they relate to free trade versus fair trade and just what the dynamics of some of the last decades were, as recent past history has indicated, as they relate to American jobs and the American economy. This will be a good opportunity for us to address in fuller terms the issues of trade that we believe need to be addressed significantly well before we go forward with these negotiated contracts that could cause undesirable results, rather than those for which we all, I would believe, want to work--the opportunity to provide for individuals to tether the American Dream, to be able to go forth with dignity, to assume jobs that allow them to express their skills and God-given talents, and to be able to have that soulfulness of earning a paycheck. We want to focus on those issues here this evening. There are many who would suggest that a fast track is of great concern. Fast track is that circumventing of the responsibilities of Congress--the ability of Congress--to get more in depth with the proposed agreement, to understand fully what those impacts of the agreements might be on their local economy, on their State economy, and certainly on the national scene. It is important for us, I believe, to invest ourselves as a House. I would encourage those viewing this evening to ask their individual Members of Congress where they are on the fast track. Do you stand for the concept that goes back to the days of President Nixon, that gave a more expedited process and perhaps more authority over to the executive branch to get these contracts done? Or do you stand for the scrutiny that should rest with the Congress to make certain that no undue pressure is put on our local jobs and economy, falsely so? I believe that we do have that responsibility. As we have seen in recent years, we have grown the trade deficit of this Nation into the trillions of dollars. The challenge exists here, in the House, in this Congress, both Houses being faced with the added pressures of understanding what the dynamics of our trade deals are all about. The first step of which we express concern is that fast track concept where we, again, do not allow for the fullest efforts of Congress to be utilized--where we can amend, where we can adjust, where we can advise--and simply a thumbs-up/thumbs-down doesn't quite cut it for the people we represent, the working families the great many of us dub the ``middle class of America.'' As I enter into this discussion, I am reminded of the district that I represent in upstate New York that basically witnesses--hosts--the confluence of the Hudson River and Mohawk River. Those two valleys merge in the district that I represent, and they were the gateway, designed as an Erie Canal, barge canal system, that produced not only a stronger economy for New York, developed a port out of a little town called New York City, and then gave birth to a necklace of communities dubbed ``mill towns'' that became the epicenters of invention and innovation. It was there that many an immigrant tethered his or her dream, the American Dream, at those factory sites, where they were able to climb that ladder of opportunity, where they were able to lift their family's potential simply through the investment of hard work, pouring forth somehow their ability to land those jobs, and then to provide the creative genius that oftentimes developed new product lines or better product lines. That was a heyday of the American economy that, again, started through these mill towns. They became those locations of hope and prosperity. Then it led to a westward movement, an industrial revolution where we were the kingpin of the world's economy. We know the world dynamics are different today. We know that we need to adjust and respond, but we do that thoughtfully. We do it mindfully. We do it in a way that is academically measured, so that we don't introduce free trade but, instead, value fair trade, making certain that fair trade doesn't dispense unnecessarily of American jobs, that does not deflate our economy and finds us working on something, competing on something--the likes of an unlevel playing field. We need to have that level playing field be the result. Tonight, we are talking about some of those trade negotiations that will come forth. The most recent now is being viewed as a huge impact on the world's economy. A great percentage of the world's economy will be impacted by the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We have to make certain that it is done correctly, that it is done sensitively, that it keeps in mind that the American contribution to all of this should provide us an ample opportunity, an equal opportunity, to compete for jobs. What has happened is that we have had these trade negotiations develop well beyond the original dynamics of trade barriers and tariffs. They are incorporating far more information and dynamics than just those barriers. We may reach to items like collective bargaining opportunities or environmental standards or guidelines for public health or requirements for public safety. If we relinquish some of those hard-fought battles in this country to make safer a workplace or to have a product be as safe as possible or where we have been sound stewards of the environment or we have offered dignity to workers to collectively bargain, to unite as an effort to score for better benefits and just remuneration for the work that they do, we want to make certain that those standards are not dumbed down, that they are not reduced, that the world comply with those given opportunities for which decades' worth of sweat equity was poured forth. Advocacy was echoed in the halls of government to make certain that these justified outcomes were fought for and realized and made statutorily etched into our government and our laws. We do not take this lightly. We take this effort as a serious challenge, one that would address some of these hidden impacts that aren't often shared well enough with the general public that we serve that are represented here in this Chamber. It is important for us to understand one of those growing concerns happens to be currency manipulation. It is one of those sneak attacks that really provides for a grossly unlevel playing field. We are discussing a critical aspect of the global economy and trade policy that has been ignored for far too long. This currency manipulation is causing a lot of concern on both sides of the aisle and is now pushing legislators to speak more forcefully. When countries manipulate their currency, it makes foreign-produced goods all the cheaper. That should signal an alarm. It doesn't end there. It also suggests or creates a situation where United States exports are less competitive. It doesn't end there because, as we lose in that battle, where we are less competitive, it then drains our economy by contributing to the downward pressure on wages in many sectors of our economy. We have seen this tremendous impact in trade deficit that has been produced in this country because of failed negotiated contracts and because of the impact of currency manipulation. Now, I understand that currency manipulation is not something most people talk about. It is not easy to conceptualize how devaluation of China's yuan or Japan's yen could impact us so severely. It puts American jobs in jeopardy. That is why we need to consider this issue much more seriously. We need to make certain that a structured response to this manipulation is part of the negotiations and part of statute from the Federal perspective. Millions of jobs, I would suggest, are at stake. If a country is going to cheat by devaluating its currency to make its products cheaper, it hurts America, and that hurt should not be tolerated. It is as simple as that. For anyone that claims to support unfettered free trade, I urge them to engage in this issue. Persisting currency manipulation distorts markets. It is as simple as that. As long as it is allowed to continue, trade cannot be free, trade cannot be fair. Now, there is a growing bipartisan consensus that strong and enforceable currency rules are needed, needed to ensure a level playing field for both the legislative perspective and as part of any new free trade agreement. We believe, many of us, that it should be part of statutory reform but, indeed, included in those agreements that are struck. Few actions by foreign governments do more to disrupt free trade and harm the United States job market than currency manipulation. A wide array of economic think tanks--including the Laffer Center at the Pacific Research Institute, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Center for Automotive Research--have all published what are extensive studies and commentaries supporting a crackdown on currency manipulation. These groups hold varying and diverse views on the benefits of free trade, so they may not all be coming from the same perspective, but all are united in their sense that trade cannot be free or fair if countries are allowed to cheat by manipulating their currencies. The Peterson Institute has support indicated for currency as a chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Certainly, the former economic adviser to the Vice President has also supported including a currency chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Peterson Institute has estimated that America's trade deficit has averaged some $200 billion to $500 billion per year higher as a result of the manipulation. That is happening from many angles, primarily from forces in China and Japan. Let me repeat those stats. $200 billion to $500 billion per year is the estimate for our trade deficit coming from some sound think tanks as a result of currency manipulation. The Peterson Institute also estimates that interventions in currency markets by foreign governments have cost United States workers as many as 5 million jobs over the last decade. So I believe it speaks to us profoundly and should cause us to respond to the challenges of protecting jobs, American jobs, through the issues of fairness. This is not asking for some unfair competitive advantage. It is simply reminding the world that we understand what is happening out there as dynamics work against us and that we are going to do what we can to inspire fairness in the process. The EPI, the Economic Policy Institute, found that ending currency manipulation could reduce the United States trade deficit by as much as $500 billion within 3 years and create as many as 5.8 million--5.8 million--American jobs. These are statistics that should not be taken lightly. They are reports that should feed our senses and build our passion to do what is correct here, to make certain that we inspire the sort of reforms to this process and to Federal law that would make for a much fairer outcome, a more fair outcome for the American public. Certainly there is no greater issue that rests before Congress these days than creating the climate that allows for private sector job growth. Now, government may not create jobs. That may not be our purpose, prime purpose, but we certainly can do all within our power to create the sort of climate, the environment that allows for job growth to be maximized. As we move into this desire to have world trade work as powerfully as it can and as fairly as it can for those of us in this country, we need to make certain that some of these reforms are embraced, and embraced in as enthusiastic a manner and expeditious a process as possible. There was a report released just last week by EPI highlighting the negative impact that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would have on the United States' jobs if currency manipulation is not addressed, and that report, dubbed Currency Manipulation and the 896,000 United States Jobs Lost Due to the United States-Japan Trade Deficit, contains estimates for job displacement for every congressional district. We are making certain that all of our colleagues know of this information. These are data that are relevant to the people that we represent. These are data that challenge us. I know that the study found that over 46,000 jobs would be displaced in New York State, including 1800 in the 20th Congressional District of New York, my home district. That is due, again, to the massive trade deficit that this Nation endures with Japan, a deficit that has been fueled primarily by currency manipulation. So how do we address currency manipulation? How does it work? To identify manipulation, we need first and foremost to look at three criteria, criteria that are based on the International Monetary Fund's definition. First, does the country of concern have large reserves of foreign currency, does the country have sustained trade surpluses, and does the country continue to buy large amounts of foreign currency? Worth repeating. Does the country have large reserves of foreign currency, does the country have sustained trade surpluses, and does the country continue to buy large amounts of foreign currency? Undervalued exchange rates allow the manipulating country to boost exports of their products and then put imports from other countries that are not cheating at tremendous disadvantage. Floating currencies should be self-adjusting based on trade deficits and surpluses. Cheaper dollars will lead to more exports and a balancing of the deficit over time. It is an ebb and flow relationship, and there is a natural tendency for that ebb and flow; but when enters in a greed factor, it can change those results and change them severely. The natural trend is not allowed to occur when a country intervenes in that currency market. Countries like China and Japan have prevented this self-correcting process by buying United States currency. This artificially strengthens the dollar and keeps us importing relatively cheap goods produced abroad. We already have a significant trade deficit with Japan, and that is very much measured in the automobile industry. Our trade deficit with Japan is second only to our trade deficit with China, and the majority of that deficit is in the automotive sector. Now, if you are to talk to any of our colleagues from Michigan, they will tell you about the devastation that has been borne upon, laid upon that auto industry in their home State. They have shared with us some very painful statistics. Well, the majority of that deficit, as I said, is in the automotive sector as it relates to Japan and China. Japan, for instance, imports one American car for every 100 Japanese cars imported into the United States each year. That is one car, one car imported from America into Japan for every 100 Japanese cars that are imported into the United States each year. That pattern can't continue. That is an easily predictable devastating outcome. Ford Motor calculates that the weakened yen of Japan added some $6,000 in profit, on average, per car imported from Japan in the years 2012 to 2013. So if you have that $6,000 advantage built into the sales price, where do you think we are going? It is allowing for such a devastating impact on the American worker, the autoworker of this country. It is unrealistic to have us as a nation to stand silently and not echo some order of concern. So what can the Congress do? Well, the House of Representatives should pass the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, and the administration should require strong and enforceable currency manipulation provisions in the TPP, in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Bipartisan groups in the House and in the United States Senate here in Congress are introducing legislation which would use United States trade law to fight currency manipulation and provide consequences for countries that indeed do cheat. In the 113th Congress, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, of which I was cosponsor, would have enabled the Department of Commerce to impose countervailing duties to offset the impact of currency manipulation. If you want to cheat, you pay. We are not going to stand for unfair trade. That bill had 157 bipartisan cosponsors, and identical legislation was passed with bipartisan support back in 2010. The legislation is identical to the House bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2010. That bill is consistent with the World Trade Organization and its rules. I think that this bill is written intelligently to conform to our trade agreement rules by considering currency devaluations as an illegal trade subsidy. We already have mechanisms for addressing other illegal subsidies, but a bill such as that one, which is a start to addressing the problem, will not end the practice of currency manipulation. We also need to include provisions in our trade agreements. Those provisions included in those agreements would provide our trading partners with a strong deterrent for manipulating their currency in the first place. We also have to make sure that our trade obligations explicitly allow this approach to targeting currency manipulation. So I believe there are efforts within our grasp that we can work to achieve, that the changes and the reforms that we can provide will enable us to breathe free and grow and enhance the opportunities of our manufacturing sector. Now, we think back to the booming economy we had in the 1950s and 1960s. We think of all the post-World War II growth of this Nation. We think of the tethering of the American Dream. We think of the passion of immigrants who had come here to climb those ladders of economic opportunity. We think of the generations that were strengthened by those who made the journey. It was their dream to provide a better life for them and their children and their grandchildren, and they saw it happening within these mill towns, those epicenters of which I spoke, epicenters of invention and innovation, of creative genius that enabled us to be the best we could possibly be and where there was hope abounding in our communities. We can bring back that spirit. We can call for justice, social and economic justice as it relates to workers, as it relates to a world scene where there is a thought for those in the middle-income community, the middle class of America, the working families of America, strengthened and empowered because we get it here in Washington, where we speak to forces like counterforces, like currency manipulation that doesn't give us a fair shot, that creates an unlevel playing field, that will cost us dearly in jobs and in the growth of our economy. So there is much work to be done. We need to make certain that as stewards of these agreements we are insisting that our strength be heard at the table, that we make certain that we are informed about issues like child labor laws, about the rights for collective bargaining, about environmental standards, about the need for public health and public safety to be addressed in the workplace and in the product line that is developed. These are standards that are uniquely American at times, that should lift the world along with the people of this great country. We don't abandon those championing efforts that enabled us to be a stronger people, a safer people, building a stronger tomorrow. We don't abandon those principles. We build upon them. We share them with the other nations of the world. As I mentioned to a group of labor individuals in my district recently, there are consequences galore if we continue down this path. We are selling short the American worker. We are offshoring jobs that we can ill afford to ship away. But it is beyond that. Not only does the American worker lose her job, not only does the American worker lose his hope, we then find economies around the world accepting the fact that their citizens are working for 75 cents an hour. Where is the justice to any of the workers around the world? This is an impact that has a ripple effect that pours forth in painful measure with insensitivity and gross, gross negative outcomes. We can do better than that. We can be a country that will stand tall and know from the growth and progress that we have achieved through our halls of government, through the efforts of labor and unionized forces that came through labor and said, We are better than this. We need to share in the wealth of our economy. We need to make certain that we respect our labor forces. The unionized efforts gave us sound benefits and sound salaries and good working conditions, acceptable standards. We are not going to ship that away. We are not going to allow for currency manipulation and the undoing of the American ideals, to be forsaken for the sake of a factor that has taken this global economy and produced these outcomes that are grossly unfair. When we see a trade deficit in the trillions of dollars, when we understand that addressing currency manipulation can undo by hundreds of millions of dollars a deficit in a short order of 3 years, we can make a difference. We can be a force of change. We can be the voice of reason. We need to be that leader at the table. Congress needs to be involved, invested in this opportunity. We need to make certain that the academics guide us here, that we pay attention to the data that are speaking to our senses. We are rejecting all for which we fought. We are rejecting all for which labor painfully organized and achieved successful outcomes. If there is not justice for all in this process, it will not work. But the American standard, the American appeal, the American hope that has been a beacon to people around the world should be that guiding force, should be the noble effort that allows all of us to understand that by committing to these issues of social and economic justice, we will have strengthened not only the American worker but workers around the world. An unlevel playing field simply does not work here. And offshoring jobs is the painful, gross neglect of the American Dream. The American Dream was one that found people playing by the rules, rolling up their sleeves, and expecting to taste success. We can still build that aura within the halls of government. We can create those standards that determine a fair and just outcome. And we can speak soulfully to the people who are counting on us in the given communities they call home across this great expanse called the United States of America. We have always been that higher standard. We have always been the people in search of a better tomorrow. We have always been a society indebted to justice. Throughout our annals of history, stories replete of us making a difference by working our process called government, by making certain it empowers the individuals and families of this Nation in a way that simply speaks to what is right. We know it is right here. There have been a number of folks in this House championing the effort of fair trade, talking about the inclusion of Congress in a way that allows for amendments and improvements to agreements and certainly an outspoken force that speaks to holding fast to those standards that speak to the wisdom that guides us, of being fair and respectful to those who labor, who labor steadfastly, who ask only to be treated as an equal partner in this process. It is an honor to represent those voices that speak so profoundly well in the workplace, asking for that dignity of work, asking for just remuneration for the sweat equity that they pour forth in wanting to have just that better step forward for their children and their grandchildren as they grow to their tomorrows, filled with hope. We can provide hope. We can build change. And we can issue justice if we put our mind, heart, and souls to that effort. I suggest we can do it. It is within our grasp. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and yield back the balance of my time.