Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Sure. Well, the gentleman from Texas gave a great rundown of the dynamics that have brought us to this moment. It's a sad day in this House with a government shutdown. The Republican shutdown of government is something that I think bears great consequences. And we've seen it and heard about it already. I wasn't here for the last such episode, which is about 17 years old in duration, but I do know that hearing from constituents already about concerns for vital services, about furloughing, about the impact on family budgets for our many, many Federal workers is real. So we need to move forward, I think, in a way that allows us to address a clean CR. People say, Well, what is a clean CR? What is a CR? A continuing resolution allows for a short-term continuation of a Federal budget, absent a negotiated budget. And I think that we find ourselves in this situation where we require a CR. Hopefully it will be a clean one. No bells and whistles, no attachments. And the desire to attach the Affordable Care Act and to call it on this floor in those discussions, in those debates ``a bill'' is disingenuous. It's an act. It is a law that was signed into place by the President and that was given constitutional approval when reviewed by the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court. So let's call it what it is. It's a law. This is unprecedented in trying to take a law and repeal it as part of a negotiating process to move a budget forward. A budget should be about the math of that budget, about upward/downward adjustments of programs and putting together a blueprint for whatever--a 3-month, 4- month scenario that will enable the government to be funded and continue to operate. And quickly coming upon the heels of that is a debt ceiling bill that needs, again, approval from Congress to have America pay her bills. So these are basic fundamental processes that ought not be tainted by political whim and disagreement and discontent with an outcome that is 3 years old now and that found a great threshold date today, October 1, as many people are now allowed to enroll across the country for the purposes of health care coverage--affordable, accessible, quality health care for individuals and families. That was the thematic. That was the mission statement. That was the goal. So we need to go forward. We need to now get out of this shutdown and not enable it to continue for any longer in duration. And we need to make certain that we understand that the need for a CR, a continuing resolution, is because we don't have a budget. Now when the United States Senate approved its version of a budget, when the House of Representatives--this body--approved its version of a budget, and when the President and his administration offered their fiscal blueprint for the fiscal year, we should have moved forward. Many of us--yourself, myself--aggressively encouraged the leadership to name the panelists at the conference table. Name the ``conferees,'' as they're dubbed, to the process so that we can put together a budget--balanced, bold--that allows us to do the sort of creative qualities that would reduce the deficit, grow the economy, create a climate for growing jobs, and produce revenues where they're essential so that we cut where we can in order to invest where we must, especially in this innovation economy. That should have been the order of business for the day. This whole debate, this whole shutdown, the Republican shutdown that happened to become reality this morning at midnight could have been avoided if we had gone forward, named the conferees, named the panelists to the conference table to negotiate out a settlement, recommend to the two houses, get the work done. This economy, this Nation requires that. The individuals, families members across this Nation deserve that sort of certainty, as does the small business community. That's the business that should have been accomplished; but, instead, we find ourselves requiring a CR. And now, in this painful moment of allowing for the budget to be funded, or a CR to be done, we attach bells and whistles like the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Unnecessary, immoral, in a sense, to hold back a process like this.

Mr. TONKO. Right.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I have one basic question: What are we doing here? I mean just that. What are we really doing here? Each day we talk about problems, problems, the real problems that face our country that are fixable with compromise and clearheaded solutions. Each day, this Chamber does nothing to overcome those challenges in front of us. Each day, the American people think we can't sink any lower or be any more dysfunctional. Right now, there's talk about passing a 1-week budget to simply provide the time for elected officials--people charged with running the government of this great Nation of ours--to get along for enough time to pass yet another extension. Say it isn't so. One week. There are lemonade stands with better budgeting practices than what we have seen in this body in the past 2 years. This is unacceptable, this is absurd, and it certainly is not what the American people deserve from any layer of government, especially their Federal Government. Let's get this done. Let's pass a budget, a budget that cuts where we can, that invests where we must, that grows jobs, and ends the painful consequences of sequestration. The absolute misery here is that all of this dysfunction could have been avoided. We could have avoided the reach to yet another kicking of the can down the road if we would come together at the conference table and do a real budget. We could reach through a budget process; we could reach to regular order. With many of my colleagues, I have urged them that the leadership in the House resort to naming the panelists who will sit at that conference table to realize regular order through a budget process, a real budget process. That request has been turned down time and time again. The statements made in the past were, Well, the Senate hasn't moved on a budget, or We haven't heard from this entity about what their plans are. Well, the truth be told, this year, the United States Senate passed its version of a budget. This House passed its version of a budget. The President and his administration have advanced their fiscal blueprint for the coming fiscal year. The entities have spoken. The process needs to be addressed and respected. We need to bring those panelists to the conference table-- those who will represent Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate--to come to terms, to develop the compromise in the spirit by which our Founding Parents developed this wonderful blueprint of a Republic, guided by the democracy. Why are we rejecting that opportunity? A sound budget could allow us to escape the terrible consequences of sequestration. I have witnessed what that sequestration has meant in my own district. During our 5\1/2\-week district work period, I visited with many of those Head Start programs, with Early Intervention, with nutrition programs, with food banks that address the nutrition needs of the people of this great Nation. I have worked with the small business community to understand more fully what the impact of sequestration might mean to them--cuts to research, to programs that have furloughed my Federal employees if given the opportunity to serve this Nation through their workforce. All of that consequential damage could be avoided if we would resort to the soundness of the tool called the ``budget.'' The sequestration issue is painful. It's a hidden attack. It's mindless, thoughtless, and it has pervaded itself into the fabric of our communities--into the quality of life of the people who place within us the trust to be their voice in Washington. So we need to do better than this paralysis that has stalled the process that finds us at the midnight hour, searching for answers in the most unusual format that will resort to yet another kicking of the can down the road, that would use the smoke and mirrors to balance a budget for some uncertain period of time, that doesn't provide the predictability to the business community or to the working families of this Nation. The partnership with their government should be real. It should be stated in terms that allow for the respect of businesses to invest and hire and be productive. We have had a plan in this House coming from the Democrats. Representative Van Hollen has introduced a plan that will reduce the deficit in greater fashion and will avoid the painful consequences of sequestration.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Ryan. Thank you for expressing the tone of harshness that has prevailed in this Chamber. I don't know if I can remember when a law, a standing law in this country, was used as a reason to avoid paying our bills or keeping government running. I find it regrettable that we go after the law of the land, in this case the Affordable Care Act. They'll reference it as ObamaCare, and we will see how long that label stands when the program proves successful. It might be removed immediately. But, nonetheless, the harshness here is driven after a season, season's worth of activity on the Affordable Care Act. We have voted for it in both Houses of the Congress and with bipartisan support in the Senate. The President stood for reelection, and was reelected amidst immense arguments and debates about repeal and replace by the opposition, by the candidate for President of the other major party. So the people have spoken. Then, when they elected Members to the House of Representatives, the cumulative total of votes for the Members of this House was, in the majority, calling for Democrats. The people have stated they support this. As Senator McCain indicated on the floor just this week, there are consequences to elections. It's not sinking in--or perhaps it has, but they refuse to allow their behavior to end. It's putting themselves first as political forces rather than the people, rather than what's in the best interest of the people. I'm convinced that this is driven by the fear that this ObamaCare, as they call it, will be successful and that this is their last effort possible to end the opportunity to provide affordable, accessible, quality health care for all. We know it. We see it in our States. We see it in Ohio. We see it in California. We see it in Florida. We are joined by our friend from Texas, who just visited my district this week in Albany, New York, Representative Castro from Texas. We see it in our home States. People have a need out there. In my case, I can cite some of the stats: 36,000 young people with preexisting conditions will not be biased against in having insurance. Take it away, why don't you. Take it away, and then put us at risk of defaulting with our credit rating. Take it away. Be harsh. We look at the 12,000-plus seniors who are receiving discounts for their pharmaceutical needs. Take it away, why don't you. It's unfair. It's un-American--immoral--to take it away, but we are going to use it as a pawn in a device here called ``negotiating'' on whether or not the government will continue to run or on whether we will keep the doors open and the lights or on whether or not we are going to pay our bills. Come on. Working families in this country understand it. They roll up their sleeves. They play by the rules. They work hard. They expect to taste success. They pay their bills on time, and they expect their government to do likewise. They don't expect us to put a roadblock in the way that says the law of the land--constitutionally tested in the highest Court of the land, in the Supreme Court, and that has been given the green light--we're going to put that in as a roadblock to stop progress because we know the October 1 starting date is quickly arriving. This is grossly unfair to the people of this country. When I look at the 124,000 seniors who are receiving free preventative services, I'm not ready to give that up. Repeal is not an answer--improving is an answer, and I will work with you--but we don't use this vehicle as a reason to stop government from running or as a vehicle from stopping us from paying America's bills. It goes on and on. There are 6,200 young people who now qualify to stay on their parents' policies for their health care coverage. This is a vast improvement. This is allowing the tens of millions of people who have been uninsured--and the many who are underinsured--to finally have access, connection, to a system. Aren't we in this business to respond to the needs of people? Are we in the business to take the facts, twist them, present them in a way that offers confusion, and only serve for political, partisan purposes? I think we can do better than that in this Chamber. We are going to work, and we are going to get to that finish line. I am convinced, Representative Garamendi, that we are going to stand for justice, for what is fairness in our society. Health care is a right. We should see it as an American right--the moral compass points in that direction-- and we ought not use it as a pawn in a political theater that allows for us to not have government funded or that allows for us not to pay our bills. Let's get on with business. What's happening in this Chamber? Are we so insensitive to the needs of people? What could be more important than responding to the health care needs of the people of this great country? Let's stop the brinksmanship. Let's get it done. Let's get business done here. I thank you for leading us in this discussion and for having served with our all of colleagues here.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from Hawaii for bringing us together in a bipartisan, spirited way to recognize the living Medal of Honor winners, who are much applauded and much recognized and deeply loved by this Nation. I rise this evening to honor the heroic efforts of Sergeant First Class Francis Sherman Currey of the United States Army. Sergeant Currey served with the 30th Infantry Division and was awarded the Medal of Honor for acts of conspicuous gallantry on December 21, 1944, near Malmedy, Belgium. While defending a strong point, Sergeant Currey's platoon was overrun by German tanks, leading to the withdrawal of his platoon. Sergeant Currey was able to obtain a bazooka despite taking heavy fire from enemy tanks and infantrymen just a short distance away. Pushing forward, Sergeant Currey eliminated one tank and cleared three German soldiers from a house. In discovering five trapped American soldiers, Sergeant Currey acquired several anti-tank grenades. In driving the tank men from their vehicles, he provided enough cover fire to free the five soldiers. It is for his indomitable heroism and consummate devotion to duty that I am proud to honor and remember the actions of Sergeant First Class Sherman Currey. I thank you for the opportunity to share with you this evening on behalf of this wonderful gentleman.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, more than 30,000 families in New York's capital region rely on SNAP benefits to put dinner on the table every night. Nationally, about 87 percent of families on food stamps include a child, a senior citizen, or a disabled person. These members of the American family are hungry. They are not criminals. Yet House Republicans are trying to cut $40 billion from this critical program, 10 times the amount the Senate has proposed, without first looking at closing tax loopholes for major corporations or cutting subsidies to profit rich oil companies. These benefits are not luxuries, Mr. Speaker. These are basic, sustainable meals that will keep our unemployed and underemployed nourished until they find a job that lets them support themselves and their families on their own. If House Republicans truly want to reduce food stamp rolls and decrease how much our Nation spends on the SNAP program, then they need to join the Democrats and get serious about creating quality, well- paying jobs instead of trying to balance the budget on the backs of our country's most vulnerable.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Yes. In fact, I will offer my closing comments here, Representative Garamendi. You know, I think what you talk about in choices are exactly what a budget is about. It's the priorities we establish, in a bipartisan fashion and a bicameral way, that enable us to go forward with the best blueprint that grows the most hope and promise for this Nation. If we can deliver that hope, we've done our job. This is about investing in the American Dream. It's about responding to that old, old adage within this Nation that you tether that American Dream here in this wonderful Nation, where people rightfully anticipate that if they play by the rules, they roll up their sleeves, they invest their talents and their skills and their intellect and their passions into work, they rightfully anticipate to taste success; and that allows them to have an equal shot at opportunity in this Nation. That has not been the guiding course. We have had an unlevel playing field. We have made choices that have penalized the great percentage of Americans; 95 to 98 percent of Americans have been impacted by some of these choices and priorities to the negative. And so it's important for us, I believe, to offer that dream, that American Dream, the underpinnings of support that it rightfully requires. The cost of a college education ought to be addressed by Washington. We need to forcefully come up with a plan that reduces that cost, because that higher ed opportunity, those apprenticeship programs are training the workforce of tomorrow. And without that workforce, without that human infrastructure, we are less robust in our competitive force. What about the investment, as Representative Garamendi mentioned, in infrastructure? What about that infrastructure bill that has worked well in sections of the globe? Why not go forward with that opportunity so that small business can prosper in that outcome? The great engine of this economy, of this comeback, has been small business growth; jobs provided by those business citizens who are tethered to their community, who have enabled women and men in all sections of this country to draw a paycheck through some sort of commitment that they make as a small business person, giving that work opportunity to their neighbors and to the communities that they call home. That's the strength that we need for small business so that we can continue to be that engine of comeback. That comeback scenario is incredibly valuable to this Nation. And what about going forward with the commitment? There's a soundness of that moral compass that should guide us. Forever there will be those who require justice in our society, economic and social justice. We're reminded by our Founding Parents that we are in search of a more perfect Union. Well, the imperfections need to be addressed by those priorities that are established, established by us, the people's representatives in this House and in the Senate and in the White House, all of us working in a bicameral, bipartisan way to put aside petty partisan differences, to put aside personality warfare, and make certain we go forward with an agenda that is truly all-American, driven, ignited, and lifted by the American Dream. Our days, Representative Garamendi, that lie ahead hold great promise, great hope. I'm convinced that our best days lie ahead if we allow history and science to instruct us and to reach our hearts, our souls, and our minds as we go forward with the development of a budget that will be sound and reflective of all of America, with every one of her daughters and sons reflected in those decisions. So I thank you for bringing us together this evening.

Mr. TONKO. The Erie Canal, barge canal history, which is wonderful. But my point here is that there will always be struggle. For issues, there will be a counterforce to every force of perceived good that can happen, but that doesn't mean we should walk away because the climate or the environment is difficult. We go forward. We know what has to be done. History has been instructing us here. Science, through data compilation, is reminding us of some very tortuous outcomes that have been part of very atypical storms. Superstorm Sandy, which gripped the entire Northeast, was atypical. Tropical storms and hurricanes in upstate New York, unheard of, that produced all sorts of damage, including loss of life, loss of farm land, valuable farm land, loss of businesses, loss of homes in some ways, totally swept away by the forces of water. That is a difficult situation that needs to be addressed with infrastructure improvements. If not, if we do not take this to heart and mind, we will be, I believe, a lesser society for not having paid strict attention to both science and history which ought to guide us.

Mr. TONKO. Well, you know, it does go back to our humble beginnings. And again, history instructs us. History, if we allow it, will guide us. In some of our toughest times we realize some of our greatest, most monumental success stories. And you did mention the canal, which for my area, I see the 20th Congressional District that I represent, is a donor area for that canal. But I just want to make this factoid available. In those times, people look back, and they think, well, what a wonderful project, and it probably sailed through. No, it met with great controversy, and it was proposed because of economic difficult times. And here was a vision. That's leadership. Give us the vision of how you can grow the economy, what can we do that is strong and forceful and will change the outcomes out there. And it was this connection of a port, in a little town called New York, that gave birth to a necklace of communities called mill towns in upstate New York that became epicenters of invention and innovation. That all came about with a struggle, a struggle to find the investment available to build this canal. So the struggle will always be there.

Mr. TONKO. Don't forget our ports, our rail, our airports.

Mr. TONKO. It speaks also to the order of investments, rather than the order of spending, as some might label it. As we improve our infrastructure, for every dollar invested, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist with Moody's and former economic adviser to Senator John McCain, $1.57 is realized for every $1 that's invested. To me, that is a lucrative dividend. That is an opportunity for us to grow the economy by investing dollars, with the anticipation that there will be a good return on that investment. That's how it works. That's the beauty of building. I think it's what President Roosevelt saw in the 1930s and 1940s. He saw this opportunity to respond to the needs of America, public works projects that were absolutely essential, building water treatment centers, building schools and infrastructure, roads and the like. President Eisenhower saw the beauty of an interstate highway system, putting people to work and making strong opportunities available for commerce. These are the fundamental needs of a sophisticated society. It's the needs of certainly America in a modern age, innovation economy. So the roads and bridges as traditional sources, water treatment facilities, utility grid upgrades, telecommunications, this goes well into the new technology spheres of today where you wire communities and neighborhoods for business. There is a dire need for that sort of activity. That puts people to work. That's an investment that will draw a rate of return on the dollars invested in those projects, and that's what makes the wisdom of that approach very remarkably sound and comprehensible. I think history has taught us well, and for us to ignore history at a moment when we are still struggling with this comeback. And yes, there has been a steady growth in private sector jobs, but many propositions sent to the House and to the United States Senate by the Chief Executive, by the President, have been denied simply because of the source from whom they are coming. Let's be frank about this. This is not the time to play personality warfare. It's time to do sound, progressive policies that provide for then good politics, bipartisan politics for this Nation and her people and her working families. It's as simple as that. Let's go forward, invest in our manufacturing base. Innovation economy, clean energy economy, which requires the tools of a modern-day economy so we can build it cheaper and smarter perhaps, but definitely cheaper. That's how you land those contracts in the international marketplace. So I am hopeful that our best days, Representative Garamendi, lie ahead if we have the tenacity, if we have the integrity to go forward with what are the soundest of policies and the boldness of investments that are done, that are placed on the table with the full anticipation and expectation that there is a reasonable rate of return on that investment.

Mr. TONKO. There again, it's policy or lack thereof that's impacting us heavily. Witnessing some of the unusual 100-year storms, 500-year storms as they're designated in a rapid succession over the last several years, dating back to the late 1980s, but then in rapid succession 2006, 2011 and 2012 in upstate New York in an area that I represent, or just south of me in the area that borders my district, tells me that even the nomenclature is ludicrous. It is not a 100 or 500-year storm; it's happening frequently. And it is because we don't embrace some of the science out there that, through data compilation, is begging our attention. If we're going to continue to ignore those impacts of Mother Nature, if we're going to ignore the global warming and impacts of Mother Nature on our infrastructure, we are going to have more and more bills for cleanup. And is it just replacement, or are we talking about reevaluating situations? For instance, some of the electrical utility efforts that stayed most abundantly strong were distributed energy projects along the coast in metro New York with Superstorm Sandy. I saw infrastructure, bridges displaced by the powerful force of water, in some places equated to the cfs, the cubic feet per second, flow of Niagara Falls. So the data are telling you that these storms are more and more frequent, you're going to get this extra volume of water, precipitation, do you just replace, or do you take a longer span, greater height to that bridge design? These are things that need to be discussed. Again, it is going to be money coming out of the pocket because we're not dealing with the fundamental science that is telling us we should anticipate more and more of these storms. The infrastructure along these efforts, the coastal erosion, is requiring all sorts of improvements of ports. This affects our economy. This requires a master plan. This requires a Make It In America agenda that puts into play investments into our infrastructure, to replace what has been damaged with a sound investment, reinvestment here, that improves upon a situation rather than just replaces when we know that it will probably not withstand the forces of Mother Nature into the future. So infrastructure is critical, and the millions that we can put to work with that kind of legislation. The President has called for improvement in our infrastructure that will put millions to work. The best way to resolve a deficit in this country is to have people going to work. The dignity that comes with that investment in work opportunity is good for working class families across this country. So we know what to do. Let's get on with the business.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, you have highlighted in very stark contrast the difference in the thought process and the philosophy of what was then under President Franklin Roosevelt and what is now, and certainly what had happened during the Clinton years, which proved much more progressive in its nature. If we think of that quote of President Roosevelt where society needed to be tested as to whether or not they were going to add more, add to the abundance of those who have much, that was a tremendous litmus test. It was a challenge to this country to search deep into its moral compass. What you're highlighting here, Representative Garamendi, is that it's an ebb and flow. It's looking for ways to pay for tax breaks for those who are perched way on the top. Where you talk of that 95 percent, 98 percent of the growth of the economy going to the top 1 percent, that's unsustainable. When you think of the gimmickry that is going on, to be able to provide for the cost of such spending--because these tax breaks for those perched on the top is an order of spending--it's done through cuts to programs that speak to hunger, cuts that will impact seniors, cuts that will impact our very young, cuts that will impact our struggling families. There is no mistake between the correlation of tough times and those who are dependent on a number of Federal programs. Throughout history, you can suggest through data that are compiled that those charts go upward when you have tough times and the reliance on some of these programs grows, and it's not unusual that has happened during the recession. So some struggling families required assistance. You also have the elderly population that have nutrition inserted as part of their health care formula and is part of their wellness agenda. If a diabetic does not get their nutritional needs met, there are problems. If there are situations where people are doing without food, it can be the difference between quality of life and sometimes survival because of the absolute need to have a well-balanced nutritional program. The same is true of our very young. We cannot ask our young children to go without the nutritional values they require or ask them to study at their best level in a classroom on an empty belly. The moral compass is very direct here. It points our way and challenges us to take those words uttered decades ago by President Roosevelt. They speak with greater resonance, a deeper more profound resonance than they had when they were perhaps first uttered by the late former President. We need to take that to mind. We need to have history speak to us. We need to look at what happened when we invested in America, in her working families in the toughest of times. When we think of the progress made during those Roosevelt years, that was a gentleman who was challenged in his own right and who led this Nation, lifted this Nation's economy while serving in a wheelchair. That is a powerful statement, one that had progressive outcomes written all over it. We need to go forward and look at these orders of investment that will grow the economy, a tax policy that draws fundamental fairness so that there isn't this gross disparity between growth for some and denial for others. It's absolutely statistically tracked now from as far along as the mid to late seventies to today. You can chart what has happened with some of these efforts to reduce assistance to working families in middle-income communities. It is unsustainable. We cannot grow an economy with these sorts of policies in play. So tonight, let's look at those investments, from education, higher education, to infrastructure, to advanced manufacturing that is required so as to allow us to compete effectively in a global economy where our manufacturing base can survive if we do it smarter, not necessarily cheaper. If we do it smarter, we will land contracts, grow jobs with the productivity factor that is developed by inserting our policies into the transformation into an advanced manufacturing economy and by providing the investments that will draw policies that are progressive and more resources that will provide a lucrative dividend, make them an investment rather than outright spending, as we saw with some of these tax relief measures which did not produce a growth in the economy and just made life very comfortable for a very relative few. So I think the challenge is before us to go forward and put a sound budget together--none of this kicking the can down the road with a continuing resolution. Let's name the designees to the conference table from each House, from each party. The President has outlined the budget with his administration. The United States Senate passed its version of a budget. The House has passed its version of a budget. Let's name the participants at the conference table. Let's do it in daylight. Let's flood the lights on the process. Let's show the sharp contrast between the various solutions and recommended approaches that will allow the public to be best engaged in the process and to understand the wisdom or lack thereof of some of the moves that are required or requested of us here in the House.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Garamendi, and thank you for bringing us together on what will be thoughtful discussion in how to invest in America and grow the economy and grow job opportunities, create that climate that best cultivates job action and job growth in our society. Just moments ago on the House floor, we held a moment of silence in recognition, in commemoration and respect for those who gave it their all, as many were Federal employees in that situation. I also want to attach my comments to those of yours in extending my condolences to the many family members and friends who are so impacted by this tragedy, this horrific act that wiped out their lives prematurely. May they rest in peace.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, recent superstorms like Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Irene, and Tropical Storm Lee have tested the resiliency of our infrastructure. During these severe weather events, bridges failed, blackouts occurred, and communities were devastated by flooding at the same time that our water supply systems failed. It took weeks to restore these vital services. Our electricity, potable water, and transportation networks must be reliable even in the face of severe storms. The American people need and deserve a Congress that will work together to address the present and growing threat of climate change and do what is necessary to ensure the resiliency of our roads, bridges, electrical grid, dams, and water systems. Accomplishing this would create jobs and support our communities and our economy. This week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that Sandy-like flooding is now twice as likely due to the sea level rise associated with climate change. One need look no further to understand that the time is now to act on climate.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 5 weeks since the House recessed for a district work period and all of our problems that we put on hold remain right here in front of us. This long list of challenges includes repealing the sequester. According to the nonpartisan CBO, sequestration will cost us about 750,000 jobs this year alone. Now is the time to act. Instead of messaging bills or playing procedural games in an attempt to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act, we should be addressing unfinished business. Americans have sent us here to do a job: help put people back to work and grow our economy. I encourage House Republicans to work with Democrats to roll back these mindless, thoughtless sequester cuts. They are the worst way to save a bad program and the most foolish way to cut a good and vibrant one.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Ranking Member Waxman, for the opportunity to share some thoughts on this legislation. Madam Chair, H.R. 1582 is yet another attempt to block the Environmental Protection Agency from fulfilling its mission, which is to protect public health and our environment. The bill is premised on the false notion that the protection of public health and the environment comes at the price of jobs. Simply, it does not. H.R. 1582 is not about transparency or fairness. The bill creates a burdensome and duplicative requirement for analysis by the Department of Energy, designed to block EPA from moving forward to address climate change. The people standing in the way of policy to address climate change are willing to subject us to ever-increasing costs of natural disasters, damaged infrastructure, and the loss of lives and livelihoods. Why? To preserve our dependence on a fossil fuel-only energy economy. Proposed regulations are analyzed and reviewed now under multiple laws and multiple executive orders. Rules in the Federal Register consume more page numbers now due to the requirements for additional analyses and documentation under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and multiple executive orders. These additional analyses, studies, and peer reviews have repeatedly shown that EPA's rules are justified and deliver many more benefits to people's health and our environment than costs to business. If and when they do not, either the rule does not go forward or opponents can have their day in court. H.R. 1582 pits one department against another. The Secretary of the Department of Energy should not have veto power over regulations that EPA is empowered by law to issue. There are ample opportunities for interagency consultation during the rulemaking process. Regulations to improve our air quality and to address other pollution problems have been opposed over the years with the threat that controlling pollution would bankrupt our industries and our economy. That has not happened. We have managed to create a cleaner, healthier environment for our people and have a robust, dynamic recovery. H.R. 1582 is designed to hamstring the EPA and continue to delay action on the looming, serious challenge of climate change. We can and must do better. We have the innovative capacity to meet these challenges. The only thing lacking is political will--political will to move forward. This Nation did not become great by denying and avoiding challenges. Avoiding this problem will only increase costs and risks across the Nation. I oppose H.R. 1582, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I respect the work done by my colleague from Illinois, but respectfully disagree with his assessment. There's ample evidence that States have poorly regulated, in some cases, this waste stream, and it puts at risk innocent bystanders who are impacted by their actions. And so I stand by the worthiness of this amendment, and again, encourage my colleagues to support it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation of 50 States, but we are bound together by common history, purpose, and laws. Prior to the passage of national environmental laws, States had individual regulatory programs that offered a patchwork of protection. We tried this system for air, for water, for toxic waste, and for many other things. That is the system we have today for the disposal of coal combustion residuals that cannot be recycled. It did not work; it does not work. H.R. 2218 will not correct the problems with coal ash disposal. We have a State-by-State program for coal ash disposal now. H.R. 2218 codifies that situation and goes further to prevent the EPA from exercising its authority to require that State programs provide a basic standard to ensure that all citizens are indeed protected. My amendment authorizes a proper Federal role, a role of oversight for the EPA to ensure the actions of one State do not result in negative impacts on a State with which it shares an important resource. In addition, my amendment would enable a State to request that EPA review the permitting program of another State to ensure that the program offered sufficient protection of its citizens and its resources. We do not allow northern States along the Mississippi River to dump toxic substances into the river for downstream States to clean up. We do not allow individual States to pollute the air and send the pollution well beyond their borders. We need a better system for dealing with coal combustion waste, a system that applies fairly across our great country. You might wonder how often the location of a coal ash facility is near enough to a shared resource or a State's border to cause a potential problem. Well, it turns out it is common. The failure of a coal ash facility associated with the Martins Creek Power Plant in Pennsylvania affected communities in New Jersey when coal ash spilled into the Delaware River. Residents of the State of Michigan were upset when the failure of an old coal ash impoundment in Wisconsin sent coal ash, mud, and machinery into Lake Michigan. And several of the coal combustion disposal facilities on the high- hazard list in Ohio and West Virginia are located along the Ohio River, a shared border and resource of these two States. Well, I could go on. It turns out that because these facilities are often located in close proximity to coal-fired utilities where the waste is generated, they are also close to water required for cooling and steam generation. A number are located near sizable water sources that serve multiple communities and often multiple States. So, in order to ensure good relations between neighboring States, and to ensure that all our citizens are protected from exposure to the toxic substances contained in coal ash, I believe the EPA should have the authority to step in when necessary. The system we have used successfully, based upon common standards that ensure the protection of human health and the environment, should be applied to this situation. We cannot afford another episode like the one in Kingston, Tennessee. The choice is not about whether we can have a clean, healthy environment or a robust economy. We can have both. Part of the formula for ensuring a robust economy includes having a clean environment. Pollution is not cost-free. It costs us lost work days, illness, and premature deaths. It devalues property and results in expensive, unnecessary cleanup costs. We can do better. My amendment will improve this bill and protect all our citizens and their shared resources. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Chair, once again, the House will consider a bill that will provide the States with what they already have--the authority to regulate the disposal of coal ash. H.R. 2218 also virtually eliminates any regulatory role for the Environmental Protection Agency. Although the bill's title suggests that it is about the beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals, it has little, if anything, to do with promulgating that worthy goal. No one has disputed that it is preferable to reduce the amount of coal ash that ends up in disposal facilities. It saves money and lengthens the productive life of that disposal facility, and it means that a waste product is put to productive use in cement, in wallboard and in other products. All of those things happen now, and they will happen whether this bill passes or not. Actually, if the bill encouraged stronger standards for disposal, it would likely spur increased recycling--another opportunity squandered, in my opinion. So, if it is not about recycling, what is this bill about? It is about maintaining the status quo. The bill virtually ensures that deficient facilities will, indeed, remain deficient. What does that mean? It means that communities in States with weak programs and lax enforcement remain at risk. This bill does not set credible standards to ensure that public health and the environment are protected. Communities whose groundwater sources are known today to be contaminated by toxins leaching from unlined disposal ponds will have to wait at least 10 years before a State would have to act, and even then there are provisions for granting additional time for an operator to upgrade or repair a leaking facility. We know from recent experience that some of these facilities are structurally unsound. A breach in the dam in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008, in eastern Wisconsin in 2011, and in Martins Creek, Pennsylvania, in 2005 all sent coal ash spilling out into waterways and onto the land. H.R. 2218 is not going to help us avoid adding accidents to this list. Very similar bills to this one passed the House several times in the last Congress. They failed to become law, and H.R. 2218, in my opinion, is going to follow that same path. Communities living in the shadows of these facilities deserve to be protected. There is no reason to allow deficient facilities to pollute our water and our air and to jeopardize the health of people in communities across this great Nation. We can do better. We should do better. My colleagues and I will offer several amendments this morning that, if adopted, would improve this bill. A better legislative effort could resolve the uncertainty surrounding this issue and, more importantly, could ensure that our citizens' health and safety are protected. We cannot afford more Kingstons. We do not have to. Without improvements, this legislation will proceed no further in the legislative process. Without improvements, it should not proceed any further. I oppose H.R. 2218 in its present form, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, ``and they're off.'' That traditional refrain as horses come out of the gate ushered in yet another Saratoga season just days ago--this time a very special season. I recognize Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates 150 years of thoroughbred racing in Saratoga Springs, New York. On August 3, 1863, a son of Irish immigrants, John Morrissey, who served two terms in this body, staged the first horse race at what is now known as the Oklahoma Track, giving birth to the oldest continually active sporting venue in the United States. Notable sportswriter Red Smith once said of the Saratoga Race Course, ``From New York City you drive north for about 175 miles, turn left on Union Avenue and go back 100 years.'' Racing in Saratoga produces over 2,000 jobs, nearly $15 million in tax revenue and an economic boost of $200 million to the surrounding region each year. I am honored to recognize 150 years of tradition and community spirit that come to life in a most unique and exciting way, that have a special place in our American story. Let me close, Mr. Speaker, the following way: ``And down the stretch they come.'' Happy 150th, Saratoga.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, although the House continues to ignore climate change, others are busy assessing the problems and options to address the new situations that this Nation and our world will face in a warmer world. The United States Global Change Research Program's draft assessment suggests that we have work to do if we are to maintain a reliable, modern transportation system. The committee's draft states that sea level rise, storm surge, extreme weather events, heat waves, and other manifestations of climate change are reducing the reliability and the capacity of our transportation system in many ways. The good news is the negative impacts can be reduced to rerouting, mode change, and other adaptive actions if we invest in our transportation network. The States should not have to do this exercise alone. The Federal Government should lead the effort to deal and resolve climate change. We can improve our infrastructure, reduce the cost of natural disasters, and ensure that our transportation network serves our Nation's needs well into the future, all while creating jobs. Let's stop denying reality. Let's address climate change. Let's move our Nation and the world forward.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Brooks of Indiana