Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from California for leading us on middle class economics and on infrastructure and on growing the jobs and growing the economy. That can be--must be--our top priority, making certain that the dignity of work and the strength of drawing a paycheck are the American Dream that we want to help individuals and families across this country tether so they can move forward, utilizing their skills and talents and passions in order to be able to maintain a household, raise a family, and provide for the American Dream. It is always a pleasure to join you when we are speaking on these issues so forcefully, and to know there is a solution out there. There is a way to grow this economy, and looking at some of the items mentioned in the budget is important, and we should pay respect to that. Certainly infrastructure that you just made mention of, and thank you for leading us in a recent motion to recommit to make certain that those who will staff those boats, transporting that cargo of LNG, create American jobs. We need to be very much disciplined in how we create a working agenda for America's families, and that is one step in the process. But to the greater issue of infrastructure, I would suggest that we are well beyond that deadline when we should have responded to America's needs. We have a very deficient infrastructure. There are many bridges in this country that are rated deficient and weak. There are a number of situations with the grid system that was designed for a monopoly setting, and we now know that we transmit, we deliver electrons not only from region to region, former monopoly region to monopoly region, but State to State and country to country. It requires an upgrading in investment in our electric utility grid and certainly broadband. For our communication's sake, we need to wire neighborhoods in remote areas in communities across the country to enable us to strengthen the outcome, the commerce end of it all, to give businesses those needs that are so important. Let me just close with this, because I see our friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has joined us. I believe it is the Ninth District of Ohio. I recently held a press conference at home after a week of being on the floor here, and it was about the child care and dependent child care credit, tax credit, and it was amazing to hear the real-life stories of parents who struggle, trying to work. They need two incomes and are impacted by the high cost of child care, quality child care. They need that comfort zone to know that as a coparent, in a way, with the given agency that they are in a secure setting, so that they can be productive at work and know that their children are well cared for. And it brings great benefits. There are social and cognitive and educational skill sets that are introduced into the lives of those toddlers and children that makes them all the more ready for that pre-K to K to elementary setting, so it has great benefits. But when you think about the fact that the average cost is $10,000 per year for child care, and when toddlers can be as high as $16,000 and a 5-year old as high as $12,000 per year, that is an immense cost to families. So as the President addresses this issue in the budget, he triples that benefit to some $3,000 per child under 5 per family. For families making as much as $120,000, they can get that full benefit, and there is a scaled-down benefit for family incomes as high as $210,000. So there are efforts here to grow the economy through middle class economics. The middle class has taken it on the chin for far too long. We have seen the growth of this economy post-recession and all of the added wealth that has come since that turnaround, that upward movement that has gone to a relative few in our society. Now it is time to share the wealth with the great numbers of us in the middle class, and that is the engine that runs America. If you give more purchasing power to the middle-income community, you give it to the working poor, give it to those looking to ascend into the middle class, that will drive a strong economic recovery, even more powerful than what we have seen since the President took office in 2009, when we hit the lowest point in March 2009. From that recession that President Obama inherited, we have done really well. We could have done much better with infrastructure investments, which would have put many people in the trades to work and where we would have responded with a much stronger outcome for purchasing power for the great many of us in that middle-income community. So, Mr. Garamendi, it is always a pleasure to join with you and our colleagues to make certain that we bring to the public's attention direct assistance that we can provide, items that have been introduced in bill format or included in a proposed budget from the President that can make a difference in the fabric of this community called America, where we can tether that American Dream in more noble and measured terms, and where we can make certain that we not only grow the climate for job production but grow the economy. So it is within our grasp, but we just have to be bold in our attempt to go forward and to be progressive in our thinking and in our policies.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi. If I could just associate my comments with the representative from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur talked about the impoverishment factor around the world. These negotiated agreements are much more than just trade barriers and tariffs. They become public policy. When you lose American jobs, that is only the beginning of the story. We have made a situation very critically tough here, and we have resulted in impoverishing workers around the world, so that is an undoable, unsustainable outcome. I think back when Ms. Kaptur spoke of the exodus of jobs and the incremental steps that took them eventually offshore. I think of the entire passageway of the Erie Canal system that drove a westward movement, reached Ohio, and then eventually allowed for the development to the west coast. You think of that, and many a person, many a worker, tethered the American Dream to those mill towns that were given birth to by that Erie Canal system. That was the empowerment of this Nation--and to think that that whole history has been rejected. A lot of the creative genius came from the immigrant who was working on those assembly lines. We need to remember that history. We must have it speak to us. This whole idea of inserting public policy into these agreements or, again, circumventing our responsibilities here in the House--people who we represent at home need to ask us: Where are we on fast track? Do we want to give up that congressional responsibility and just do thumbs up or thumbs down on a negotiated agreement? The other items that I am concerned about are items like the earned income tax credit. That is part of the budget request made by the President. I spoke to a number of people in my district who rely on that and others who aren't even filing for the earned income tax credit and they qualify. I want people to understand that this is not a tax loophole, this is economic and social justice, where we take folks who perhaps might not even make enough to file a tax return to get an earned income tax credit. This is one of the greatest antipoverty agents we have in the budget, so we need to make certain that that earned income tax credit is available when the final budget is completed, and we need to make certain we get the word out. This is about empowering those who are at the lower strata of income. We want to make certain that programs like the earned income tax credit speak to those who are working. It is encouraging people to work, and it is trying to bring again some economic justice and social justice. So many of these communities are benefited when we remind people that these tax opportunities are available for them. It empowers the regional economy. So many times, there is poverty clustered in some of our urban cores, and so the social justice that comes with an earned income tax credit is that millions of dollars are now brought back into the community. On those budgets where our lower strata income qualifying folks are, they are going to spend those dollars, they are not going to bank those dollars. So an earned income tax credit, dependent child care tax credit, these are important items--fair trade, infrastructure improvement, there are a great number of things that we can do to muscle up the outcome here. It begins in those hallowed halls of government where you can, through these efforts in the halls of government, make policy happen. We need to take heed as to what needs to be done for our middle income community.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are beginning the 114th Congress the way we ended the previous one--with legislation that is more about message than about solving real problems. The message of H.R. 351 is that we are interested in elevating the interests of the oil and gas industry above any others. Consumers will not benefit from this policy, and manufacturers will not benefit from this policy. Eliminating the public interest determination sends that message clearly. In spite of the assertions by its supporters, H.R. 351 won't do much for our allies either, especially those in Europe or Ukraine. The bill fixes no problem. There is no backlog of applications at the Department of Energy. Japan, our ally and the world's largest purchaser of LNG, has three importers who signed contracts in 2013 with three approved LNG export facilities, those being Freeport, Cameron, and Cove Point. Because natural gas is such an important and strategic resource, we should, if anything, be questioning the administration about the wisdom of issuing so many approvals. Why? They are relying on assumptions, models, and estimates of recoverable domestic gas reserves that are very uncertain and that have been decreasing as new information becomes available. Exporters sign these contracts to guarantee deliveries for some 10 to 20 years. I am not willing to risk price spikes for consumers, families, and small businesses or to risk the benefits of lower gas prices for our manufacturing sector for a slightly improved trade balance. I am unwilling to repeal the requirement for a consideration of the public interest before more export facilities are approved, not for a resource that is so strategic and widely used. H.R. 351 does not fix any real problems, but it could, indeed, help to create some. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this bill.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Very well stated. Every bit of American style is about tethering the American Dream. The people come here to have the right to the dignity of work and to pursue that American Dream. One of our newest faces in Congress in his second term, I believe, has been an outspoken voice for the American Dream. I yield to the Representative from Wisconsin's Second District to share his thoughts about the process here for fast track and free versus fair trade.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative DeLauro. You strike a very encouraging cord at the end of your comments. The American public needs to be engaged, if you believe that Congress should have overview responsibility, a checks and balances agenda, because these agreements need to be front and center about the well- being of American workers, and so call into this process, reach into this process, and share your opinion with those who speak for you in the House. Is a fast track a thing you want to see--without the information exchange--or do you want Congress to review these contracts and understand what impact there will be on the American economy, on American jobs, on standards for the environment, for public safety, for child labor laws, a number of things? We appreciate your comments.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Ryan, for bringing it right down to the basic, core ingredient, and that is the dignity of work for American families. You speak it so well for those you represent in Ohio. This is about broken promises. It is about promises for jobs, promises for worker opportunity, promises for environmental standards, promises for labor standards. We need to let the American public know exactly what is happening. If you are a believer in fair trade--not necessarily in free trade. If you believe in fair trade and if you don't think of fast track, which is when we circumvent the authorities and responsibilities of Congress, then let your voice in Congress know that. Let everyone know what you are thinking, because these are critical moments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to a good friend and colleague who is a very outspoken voice for social and economic justice, who has spoken to the unfairness of these negotiated arrangements for trade, and who has led us as a Democratic Caucus in this House to speak out forcefully about the fast-track process and about fair trade versus free trade. She is none other than my good friend and colleague from the Third District of the State of Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, we thank you for the opportunity to gather as Democrats in this 30-minute Special Order opportunity to discuss our Nation's recent free trade agreements. And I will note that nomenclature: free trade. There are concerns about fair trade being the outcome, and we will be talking about that here in this format. This is more important now than ever before as our United States Trade Representative Ambassador Michael Froman testified before the House and Senate today. The Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations are being held as we speak this week in New York City. And some Members of Congress have suggested a trade promotion authority bill, better referenced as a ``fast track,'' that may be introduced in the near future, a fast track that would deny the checks and balances of Congress, one that would not allow us to actively overview the impact of these negotiated settlements, these contracts, and would require a simple thumbs up-thumbs down vote without, again, that interactive quality that serves that responsibility to the Members of Congress. But before we give away Congress' ability to conduct proper oversight and review these trade agreements that are currently being negotiated, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we need to discuss how free trade agreements from the past two decades have not delivered on their promises. These trade deals will have far-reaching impacts on American life. They could include impacts on food safety or perhaps affordable medicine or perhaps regulations with the banking industry, the financial industry. Let's not be reckless and allow these deals to move forward without thorough and proper consideration by Congress. Frankly, these deals have not lived up to the hype. President Obama indicated as much in his recent State of the Union message: ``I'm the first one to admit that past trade deals haven't always lived up to the hype.'' So whether it was NAFTA--the North America Free Trade Agreement--or the Korean Free Trade Agreement, supporters of our past FTAs have promised these deals would create a good outcome, create United States jobs, create a lesser trade deficit, and improve global labor and global environmental standards. Tragically, sadly, this has not been the outcome. TPP supporters have said this one will be different. The Trans- Pacific Partnership, which could cover a great majority of the international economy, has its supporters saying that this will be a 21st century agreement, far different from those that have preceded it. Leaked information from the TPP negotiators shows that it is being modeled by the negotiations, themselves, not by the negotiators, showing that it has been modeled on trade policies that have proven to offshore good-paying jobs in our economy and to force wages down for America's working families. That is why respected economists, including many who have previously supported free trade, such as Jeffrey Sachs, as well as Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, have expressed skepticism about the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation. They are coming to realize what many of our constituents have long known: these trade agreements do not respond favorably to the American middle class. Sachs' speech at a trade forum on Capitol Hill included comments that indicated: I don't think TPP and TTIP rise close to the standard of being 21st century trade and investment agreements, not even close. They are very much 20th century agreements which were already out of date by the time they were negotiated. This is a NAFTA treaty writ large or these are the same negotiations that we have had in many other cases. In the New York Times, Mr. Krugman indicated: I am, in general, a free trader, but I will be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the TPP just fades away. The first thing you need to know about trade deals in general is that they aren't what they used to be. The glory days of trade negotiations and the days of deals like the Kennedy Round of the 1960s, which sharply reduced tariffs around the world, are long behind us. Then Mr. Stiglitz, in the New York Times, is quoted as saying: Based on the leaks--and the history of arrangements in past trade pacts--it is easy to infer the shape of the whole TPP, and it doesn't look good. There is a real risk that it will benefit the wealthiest sliver of the American and global elite at the expense of everyone else. Tonight, I hope we can have a thoughtful discussion about jobs, about wages, about environmental standards that could be impacted, about child labor laws that could, perhaps, be thrust upon us that have been promised for every FTA in the past two decades. Sadly, our constituents are looking for that sort of progressive outcome that has not been realized, and, certainly, our workers have been impacted. I represent a district that is tremendously impacted by these trade negotiations. So, tonight, it is a pleasure to work with my colleagues in order to get out the message about the broken promises of our trade agreements. I see my good friend and colleague who has been a very passionate voice on speaking out about these issues. He is Tim Ryan, our Representative from Ohio's 13th District. Let me yield to Mr. Ryan so he can share some thoughts with us. Welcome.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Pocan. I again urge the general public out there to engage in this process. Let your Representative know if you believe we should have overview authority and that we should have the chance to know what is in these negotiated agreements. This affects our American economy, the American Dream. It is about jobs. It is about wages. It is about critical labor standards. It is about critical environmental standards. We can make it happen. We can work on trade issues and have fair trade out there that will grow our economy and grow the American Dream for America's working families. With that, 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. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Queens, State of New York, for the opportunity to share some thoughts here this evening with our leader, Nancy Pelosi, and members of the New York delegation, as we pay tribute to the life of Mario Matthew Cuomo, the greatest of Governors in New York, and certainly a true statesman, a bold and great individual, a humble giant, and a roaring voice, a lion voice for social, economic, and environmental justice. This evening, what I recall about the life of Mario Cuomo is that as I entered the New York State Assembly in 1983, that was the same year that he entered into the office of Governor, and for my first 12 years of service in the New York State Assembly, it was guided and nurtured and impacted by the strength and the passion of Mario Cuomo. The walk with him and with Matilda Raffa Cuomo as a first couple of New York was a joyous one but a challenging one to pay tribute to the greatness, the foundation of family, and the passion of immigrants. Those two guiding dynamics drove the principles, the integrity, and the message of Mario Cuomo. As a member of his upstate cabinet informing and alerting the Governor to various strengths, vitalities, contributions, and history of upstate New York, we were able to connect in a very meaningful way; the work with him very deliberate and very challenging. I will forever be grateful for the learning curve that was developed by working alongside this person of greatness. I think, also, we need to understand that, as his son Governor Andrew Cuomo eulogized at his funeral service, he made mention very deliberately, Mario Cuomo would not offer, render his words of speeches to an audience telling them what they choose to hear but, rather, what he needed to share. That, I think, speaks to the humble greatness of this individual, one who had a vision not only for his State, but for his country and, for that matter, the world. I was also touched by the Governor's sharing about his dad, the eloquence of his speech, the eloquence of his speaking, his public speaking that reached so many people throughout the world. He talked about those words and put it into an analogy of a fine bit of jewelry where each word seen as a gem would be deliberately chosen, strategically placed, and majestically clustered in a way where that array would reach our senses, would speak to our senses about what is correct, what is socially just and morally sound. That is true leadership. And it is no wonder through that speech in San Francisco that he lit within the minds, hearts, and souls of Americans the best within us, how we could assume this level of greatness by understanding that we are at our best when we incorporate in an inclusive set of principles in our world of politics. Mario Cuomo impacted all of us, myself included, by his reverence for his parents' journey as immigrants. That journey, which was a pathway to freedom, that journey which settled into a grocery story, a corner grocery store, became the pulse of the American Dream for his family that was tethered into this country called the United States of America. He never forgot that. He revered it. He was guided by it. The light that he brought to his field of politics was immense, and it was driven by fairness and inclusion. So this evening, it is an honor to join with my colleagues to speak to a humble man, a great individual, who, with his wife alongside him, Matilda, brought to this State of New York a sense of hope when there was despair. As was said at the funeral, he will continue to live. His voice may have been silenced, but his integrity, his spirit, and his principles will long live in the lives of those who struggle and reach to America, to her government, for a better tomorrow. May he rest in peace.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. ``The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Pocan. It is great to join him in this hour of discussion about the Fast Track method that has been associated with trade negotiations and with fair trade/free trade concepts alike. I represent a district in upstate New York, the 20th Congressional District, which is primarily the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk River Valleys, and it was there that we became the donor area to the Erie Canal that gave birth to westward movement for this Nation and sparked an industrial revolution. It was there that we saw the development of a necklace of communities, dubbed mill towns, that then rose as the epicenters of invention and innovation that saw manufacturing booming as we went forward as a nation. Many an immigrant called that their new home, that region their new home, and they tethered their American Dream to the prosperity that was continuing to grow in the region. I think back to the manufacturing sector and all that it meant to my ancestors, all it meant to me and the opportunities that came into my life, and it was that empowerment that came through the availability of work, the dignity of work, the opportunity to earn a paycheck that really made a difference. I think of those same towns today having really lost millions of jobs across America. We are reflective of all those towns that became those manufacturing centers, that enabled people again to engage in meaningful employment and to be able to have those dreams, those American Dreams fully, fully strengthened by the opportunity for work. When I see the reduction of standards, of environmental standards, where we are willing to have our children exploited by the ugly sins of the past with concerns for child labor laws that might erode, when we think about some of the inequities that are brought to bear with the denial of collective bargaining, all of these items have snuck into trade negotiations. There is an importance for Congress to be able to provide the oversight and the assessment of these various negotiations, where we can look at these trade deals and suggest amendments or have sound debate. We not only have a right as Members of Congress, I think the public that we represent has a need for Congress to review these documents and to suggest improvements. So I look forward to this hour of discussion where you and I and our several colleagues will join together in speaking to the wisdom, or lack thereof, of some of the processes that have followed this entire trade discussion. We are talking about a trade deficit now that has ballooned beyond belief, to record proportions, and where we are putting our economy and that American Dream at risk and where we are denying meaningful employment to those whom we represent here in Washington. I thank you for leading us in this hour of discussion, and I know that the information that we will exchange will be very critical and important to people who will be airing into this discussion and allowing them to trade those, exchange those ideas with their given elected representatives. With that, I thank you for leading us in this important discussion.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 4. I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker on rollcall No. 2. I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted for Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1 I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 6, I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 5, I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3. I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, during yesterday's rollcall votes, I was absent because of my attendance at the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, however, on rollcall No. 1, I would have voted ``present.'' On rollcall No. 2, I would have proudly voted for Representative Pelosi for Speaker. On rollcall No. 3, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 4, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 5, I would have voted ``yea.'' On rollcall No. 6, I would have voted ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 7, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7, I was absent while attending the funeral of Governor Mario M. Cuomo in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Thank you to the gentlewoman from California for yielding. It is an honor this evening to join in the tribute to two very strong individuals who have represented their districts so very well, Representative Waxman and Representative Miller. One of the benefits and one of the opportunities that comes the way of Members of this House is to stand alongside men and women of greatness who lead not only their home district and State, but the Nation--and the world, for that matter. This evening, we recognize the contributions of Henry Waxman and George Miller. When I first arrived in the House some three terms ago, my first assignment was on the Education and Labor Committee. I thank you, Representative Miller for being an outstanding chair who enabled me to join in your sound efforts in providing for the empowerment of children, the strengthening of workers, stamping out gender discrimination, and all sorts of work that addressed not only issues of your home State of California and my district in New York, but the entire Nation--and the world, for that matter. It has been an empowering statement. To Henry Waxman, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee when I joined earlier in this third term, it was an honor to join with you, Henry, and to recognize the great work that you have done on climate change and energy issues, certainly on public health, from the warnings of tobacco to affordable prescription drugs and to move forward with the Affordable Care Act. It has been an honor. It has been a great treasure to call you colleagues and friends. I want to thank you for your intellect, the institutional memory that you carry with you, and the passion that you poured forth for your State, your country, and the world. Thank you so much for your service. We will deeply miss you.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. ``Thank you'' to the gentleman from New Jersey for the recognition and for leading us in this Special Order that pays tribute to Representative John Dingell. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to stand on the House floor this afternoon to say ``thank you'' to John Dingell. Thank you for your service to country. Thank you for your service to the State of Michigan. Thank you for your service to your congressional districts through the years, and, certainly, thank you for your interaction and networking with your colleagues, which has crossed over party lines and has shown, in exemplary fashion, how to get business done in the House. In your tribute this evening, it is important to make mention over and over again of your service to the military by serving us in the Army and by serving us during World War II. Also, the Great Lakes State, Michigan, has produced a leader of greatness in John Dingell. John, it is an honor to say here, during this special tribute, that you were, indeed, everyone's coach. I know the person of humility that you are. You shed that praise when it comes your way, but make no mistake about it that it has been your coaching, your reinforcement, your encouragement to each and every one of us. Certainly, to those of us who entered as freshmen, you were right there to shadow us and to guide us and to remind us that there is a nobleness--with a small ``n''--of service through the House that can influence policy and speak to the needs of those most marginalized in our society. To that end, I want to thank you for identifying so very strongly with struggle. You saw a struggle, and you moved to address it. Whether that be through health care, through human services, through education, and certainly through all sorts of efforts that speak to public safety, our environment, and our energy policy, you saw a struggle, and you met it head-on, and you made certain that the challenges were responded to. You showed us how to work across party lines, and you showed us how to be factual and to see your word as your honor. With all of that, I salute you, John Dingell, as being an awesome leader who taught by example how to conduct yourself in this public arena. You are proud of your heritage. We have talked about that many times over. Those roots have fed you so very well and have enabled you to be this person of greatness coming from the Great Lakes State. So thank you so much for your service to country and to all of us here in the Chamber.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, more than 18 months ago, the Senate passed a comprehensive and bipartisan immigration bill that would strengthen neighborhoods across the country, further secure our borders, inject certainty into our economy, boost our STEM and tech community, create jobs, protect employers, keep families together, our deficit would be reduced by nearly $1 trillion, and fix our Nation's broken immigration system. That was 18 months ago. More than a year ago, we introduced H.R. 15, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, which would have moved comprehensive immigration reform forward, a debate so far that has been dominated by partisan politics and obstruction. All we are asking for is the chance to vote on the bill in this body, a simple up-or-down vote. That is all we ask. We are running out of time to act on immigration reform and pass legislation that an overwhelming majority of Americans have asked the House to approve for more than a year. Again, I ask this body to put the interests of the country above those of party politics and give H.R. 15 the up-or-down vote it truly deserves.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. You talked too about the caregivers, and it is theorized that nearly 60 percent of those caregivers who respond to Alzheimer's patients and those living with dementia are impacted with tremendous emotional stress, and they rate that as high or very high. And then of that 60 percent of caregivers, literally one-third is suffering from some order of depression. So the impacts here continue to sprawl and cause greater expenditure for those who are doing their good deed, responding to the needs of loved ones or friends or the patient population out there, and then they are impacted by this order of depression. It is assumed that has added additional cost to the system of our health care drain, and that is at $9.3 billion. That estimate goes over the year of 2013, so it is very easy to begin to do the calculus here on the cost of status quo, of not responding in deep measure or in wise capacity, so as to put together the sort of research that we require and the respite relief programs that are essential. Having talked to a number of caregivers during my tenure here, now closing out my third term, but before that in the State Assembly of New York, I would routinely hear from folks who would deal with these situations, these family issues in ways that they never imagined would be possible. I know of some spouses that indicated to me that, while they stayed home full time being the caregiver, they eventually sought employment and used every bit of that salary that came from that new employment to go toward the cost of caregivers. Now, they did that in order to save a relationship. It was a tremendous emotional drain on their relationship because it is not easy serving as a caregiver. Individuals have told me, as spouses, that they have gone out and sought full-time employment and again passed over that salary to the respite person. That is the sort of painful pressure under which individuals and couples--families--are living. It is a very difficult assignment many have chosen to keep their loved one at home. There are issues of safety, economic duress, and certainly our system has to respond to that, so the sooner we set our sights on a cure, on funding that is adequate and effective for research purposes and for developing the responsiveness of the medical teams out there, via perhaps pharmaceutical assistance and development there, the better our economic situation will be in regard to these struggles. Here is a chance for Congress to respond in very magnanimous terms that will allow us to state cumulatively that we get it, that we are there in order of compassion, that we understand it is about a dignity factor, it is about quality of life, and it is about providing hope to situations that may be rendered hopeless. Isn't that the best element of work that we can do here to bridge that order of hope to those who have been so stressed and who have been given a walk in life, a journey that is powerfully painful? I just appreciate the fact that we are utilizing these opportunities, such as this Special Order, to bring to the attention of those concerned with these issues to a laser-sharp focus and to allow for people to speak out there as the general public in support of measures that can be taken, of budget appropriations that can be secured, of opportunities that come in securing the resources essential to go forward and offer the fullest response that we can. Again, health care situations are driven by this. There are huge costs if we don't respond to the needs of individuals living with Alzheimer's, and then there is that ripple effect that is happening all too frequently for the caregiver community that is also worn thin because of this assignment, because of this mission that they embrace. It is honorable that they do these things, but we also have to work the system here on the Hill in Washington, to respond to them with a degree of reverence and common sense and fully acknowledge that there are efforts that can be made here that bend that cost curve and speak to the situations at hand in the most effective manner. Representative Garamendi, I thank you for bringing us together on this evening of thoughtfulness here concerning dementia and Alzheimer's as a particular stress.