Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. There you go. Always a pleasure to join you on this House floor. And thank you for leading us in a very important discussion this evening here on the floor. It's important for us to recognize that for our business community to compete, and compete effectively, they need to be able to contain costs; they need to be able to have predictability and stability in their day-to-day routine. And I think that the Affordable Care Act takes us toward those goals. It is a predictable outcome. It enables our small business community to have a sound and well workforce. I know that that is in the ether of the mind-set of our business community in that they know a productive workforce begins with the soundness of a health care plan. We are the last industrialized nation to come to the table to begin to resolve that dilemma, and it has held back our business community. What we will have with this important Affordable Care Act is the opportunity for exchanges to be developed, either along the State line or in a national setting, that enables us to provide for the opportunities for business and to do it in a way that is vastly improved over present situations. Status quo, just about everyone agrees, will not cut it. It is unsustainable to continue with a system of health care delivery that we currently operate under. This, I believe, will be welcome news for our business community. They will have the opportunity to address this dilemma which has found the business community, the small business community, to be paying anywhere from 18 to 20 percent more than industrial settings and getting reduced services, or a smaller bit of service package, than the industrial setting would get. This allows for better services at reduced premiums that will enable them to have that affordability factor addressed. To go to the marketplace with that operational motif is going to be, I think, a very strong enhancer for the competitive edge of the American business community. So underpinning, supporting the small business community, is important because, as we know, it is the driver; it is producing the great majority of new jobs in the private sector in America today. If we can take that outcome and enhance it by addressing an Affordable Care Act that impacts soundly and progressively and positively the small business community, then we are doing something to increase America's growth in jobs. We do it also by having the ability to provide for various tax credits that go toward the small business community, especially for those that have 50 and fewer employees. We have seen what an economic engine the small business community is. Since time beginning for this Nation, the small business community has been that pulse of American enterprise. It has been that predictor of soundness, of job creation, and of economic recovery. If we treat the small business community with the respect and the dignity and the assuredness that it requires, we have done something. We will be doing something. So, Representative Garamendi, I think it is important to understand and to outline that the Affordable Care Act is the beginning of providing that foundation for the small business community to have a sound workforce, which is essential in this very competitive sweepstakes for jobs and landing contracts in that international scenario where we all compete for the right to serve the general public.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I appreciate that. I just want to state clearly that the amendment itself embraces flexibility. It understands that if there are changes in time that are requiring the list to be adjusted, we would have the academy adjust that so that the flexibility is there recognizing that if, in the course of time, the change needs to be made, if we need to further extend the list, so be it. But the flexibility is contained in the amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Madam Chair. My amendment is very simple. It replaces the overly broad definition in H.R. 4402 with a definition that truly address the materials identified in the title of the bill: critical and strategic materials. Since the realization that China was restricting exports of rare Earth metals in 2010, the issue of critical and strategic materials has reemerged as a concern. This isn't the first time Congress has considered our potential vulnerability to resource shortages. Just before World War II, Congress passed the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act of 1939 to address our Nation's requirement for materials needed for national defense. We have expanded our notion of strategic and critical materials since that time to include civilian and economic needs for materials. But there is no precedent for the broad definition included in H.R. 4402. The military's current definition of strategic and critical materials in the U.S. Code is far narrower than the definition in this bill. Nine of the ten bills introduced in this Congress dealing with strategic and critical minerals rely on definitions or specific lists of minerals that would conform to the definition in my amendment--not to the one in H.R. 4402. The definition in H.R. 4402 would include virtually all minerals and materials no matter how available they are. No other legislation proposes a definition that would consider sand and gravel ``critical'' materials. The National Academy of Science panel looked at this issue in 2008. The panel specified two factors that define a mineral as critical: It is essential in use and subject to the risk of supply restriction. H.R. 4402's definition captures only the first factor that the Academy considered. The panel recognized that the list of critical materials was likely to change over time due to technological developments, usage patterns, changes in mineral reserves, and many other factors. They developed a matrix that could be used to evaluate substances and used this matrix to examine a group of minerals that are in current high demand. Two dozen minerals were identified as critical in the NAS report. The rare Earth metals, the platinum metals, and several other minerals were included in their list. Oddly enough, sand, gravel, iron, copper--all useful materials, to be sure--did not make it to the list. The current definition in H.R. 4402 is unnecessary if the purpose is to secure additional critical minerals. H.R. 4402 undermines the protection of our public lands and elevates mining above all other public land uses. If H.R. 4402 is truly a bill to address potential shortages of critical minerals, then my amendment should be adopted. Let's concentrate on the problem at hand: Securing additional rare Earth minerals and other truly critical minerals. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. TONKO. I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. The gentleman from California speaks of the Medicare Advantage programs. Obviously, they came about because there were those who suggested they could do it cheaper. Give us a special model out there and launch it as a pilot, and we'll show you how we can do this special programming and give us a return. After reviewing now what is the history of all of that, it was deemed that there were overpayments of anywhere from 10 to 14 percent. So the dollars were slid over to programs like filling the doughnut hole and providing for screenings for our seniors, not taking it away from a category of health care consumers--in this case, an age demographic of seniors--but taking those savings, as we sweep those savings, and then reinvesting them in a way that provides balance and more sensitivity for the consumer rather than having record profits developed for an industry. To me, that was progressive policy. And for people to then take those savings and use them in their own budget presentations for other purposes was disingenuous. Now, when you talk about the efforts today of the Affordable Care Act to include an exchange, what I think is oftentimes lost, Representative Garamendi, is people see this as some sort of public exchange that is going to be run by the government. In fact, when we set up an exchange and when private sector sources come to the table, if they're willing to abide by the rules, if they're going to govern themselves by the parameters that have been established in the legislation, they can then offer services through the exchange. So it's a private sector solution but with new caveats of parameters that are established so as to provide benefit for the consumer. When you think of it, if there are firms that hire 10 people and one of those 10 becomes catastrophically ill, the actuarial impact of that one individual circumstance can drive premiums up for that small business in very high order. That kind of impact is unacceptable for the small business community that today pays some 18 percent more for its insurance and oftentimes gets weaker coverage. With the benefits of an exchange that is private sector-driven, you now have the opportunities that people can have that actuarial measurement made in a pool of perhaps millions so that the unsteady and unpredictable kind of outcome for small business is now rendered more efficient and more sensitive by shaving the peaks that may occur in a universe as small as 10 people. So there is a science to this. There is thoughtfulness that has been pumped into the discussion; and by inserting that thoughtfulness, we have come up with reforms that really speak to a wiser use of this country's health care dollars. It was a folding in of progress over the course of several years that was initiated with its passage a couple of years ago that needed time to work. To then move to repeal before a number of these programs are even implemented and for people to just play politics with the lives of individuals, with the health care quality of individuals, is regrettable, and then for us to be asked to visit for the 31st time a repeal exercise in some 19 consecutive months. We used this week of session in Congress to debate for hours, to message for hours, to come to the floor for votes. These were session days that were used up for the repeat of an exercise that time and time and time again has been conducted just to politically posture when, in fact, the American public is saying, Look, you voted on this. Look, the President signed it into law. Look, the Supreme Court--the highest law in the land, the conservative-leaning Court--has ruled constitutionality. They want us to move forward with job creation, with responding to the cures this economy needs. We started with a terrible pit of a recession: 8.2 million jobs lost and 800,000 jobs being lost per month as this administration started and, ironically, when I started my service in the House of Representatives. We were in a dark, deep hole. To come out of that with 29 consecutive months of private sector job growth and to come out of that with over 4 million jobs created in the private sector and to go forward with an effort to reform our health care system in a way that extends greater opportunity and beacons of hope to families, individuals, those who are catastrophically ill, those denied because of preexisting conditions, pharmaceuticals unaffordable for many seniors, to have all that turned around and to have all of this progress of the comeback trail from the recessionary period that was far too long and far too deep and far too painful than anyone ever forecasted--to strike that kind of progress and then have it met with 31 consecutive efforts to repeal the situation is regrettable. It's regrettable. Representative Garamendi, you've been here for those 31 efforts. Has anything changed? It's the same old, same old that is being expressed out there that does not, I think, meet the concerns of individuals out there from coast to coast.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Garamendi, I couldn't agree more with the need to exchange statistics here, the real stats on what is happening. We only have a short history, but already it's a powerful statement. When you look at healthy pregnancies, that front-end life investment which this embraces, what a soundness to the rationale for progressive policy. When you think of the dignity factor for those senior years so that people aren't chopping a pill in half so as to meet their family budget and take care of half of their medical needs, this is an exercise of foolishness to repeal at a time when we've just started the engine of recovery and transformation and transition and reform. We also know that--and I hear it from my constituents all the time-- repeal. What's the replacement? There is no hint of a replacement because you took it halfway and said, We're just going to repeal this. That's the political posturing that is so painful, because you have now delivered to society a new opportunity to better steward our resources, to better provide for the dignity in the equation so that people can have that comfort zone, knowing that if they get impacted by some sort of catastrophic illness--and we've seen it in our communities, in our neighborhoods, in our families where peoples' lives are turned around in an instant. To those who you suggested might not buy the insurance, who then bears the burden if there is a catastrophic outcome? They're saying, Oh, you're asking them to pay a tax if they don't want insurance. If they don't have insurance and they get a catastrophic illness, they fall into some sort of huge accident, who's going to pay? You're right, Representative Garamendi, there are those that get in charity situations where premiums cover it, taxpayers cover it. This has been thought out in a very meaningful way. We talk about a global competitiveness. We talk about our industries going to the marketplace, international marketplace, wind contracts, produce in America, and grow jobs. Part of the price that they have to calculate is the cost of health care. If we're providing a benefit to our business community, if we're having a smarter approach taken to the health care dollars being utilized in best fashion, there's a corresponding benefit that befalls the economic recovery opportunities because our businesses will be able to have the benefit of the soundness of that universal health care system to more effectively compete in the international marketplace, to secure those contracts that then translate into jobs. There is an interconnectedness here that goes well beyond health care policy. It falls into the realm of economic recovery and business creation and all sorts of quality-of-life issues that market our neighborhoods, our States, and our Nation for jobs. We know what's happening in other Nations. They have taken the bull by the horns, and they have put together a good, sound system, and we were comfortable to have status quo be our rule, our guiding light. It was the boldness of those leaders that came forward and said: There is a better way to use those dollars out there. There are better ways to reach people. There is a need for preventive and wellness programs, for screenings and for those annual checkups, making certain that pharmaceutical needs are something that are within the grasp of our senior community and our middle-income community and our middle-aged community. To cite scenarios like that of your staffer and his child, to provide that hope in the middle of despair where people have abandoned the hope for a better tomorrow for their children because of lack of affordability, to cover those health care situations, that's what this is about. This is the old American spirit coming forward. It's about speaking as a community, not as individuals disconnected from one another. It's about thinking as a society, of a greatness of America at her best: compassionate, resolved to make a difference, determined to use our resources in a way that is most effective, most efficient, most smart. It is America at a great, shining moment. And to denounce all of that progress and to move for repeal speaks volumes about greed and about injustice and the desire to turn progress around. Representative Garamendi, we close in the next minute or two. Any closing thoughts from you? I thank you for joining us this evening.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Kaptur. Please feel free to share more information with us. The anecdotal evidence that you provide from your region alone speaks to the empowerment that is part of this transition, this progressive policy. And to now attempt to repeal, just as you've given people the sense of hope that there will be a doable outcome, that they won't have to cut medication in half so that they could have enough money to do all the other items that are required of them, to pay utility bills, or to afford to eat for that given month--the fact that they would cut their medication in half is not a sound thing. They're spending money, and it's probably ineffective. And so tethering people to a system that is sound and secure. You know, when people say, well, I don't want to pay for someone's insurance, I don't want to pay for this health care program. You're paying today through premiums and through taxes. You're paying for the worst sort of outcome by putting people into emergency rooms and having them visit with a different doctor each time they visit and not having the stability and the standardized outcome that is predictable and effective and efficient. These are the dynamics that are driven by the soundness of a policy like this, that, yes, will take investment, but will get far greater bang for the buck than what we're getting today with a haphazard sort of response that does not provide continuity or direction or standardization or predictability and certainty. We will be far better off and a much more compassionate response is rendered. From a taxpayer perspective, from a consumer perspective, it's a far greater, stronger, more intelligent outcome; and it speaks to, I think, the core fabric of this wonderful country that we do truly care. And this is a way to show it and still be economically sounder in our attempts. Thank you for sharing the anecdotal evidence. Representative Garamendi, you and I have done a number of these Special Orders on this House floor, and I find it fascinating to see what the response is out there from the public, who always call to engage and get more information. And so the fact that we can provide more information on what is included in the Affordable Care Act, I think, is a good opportunity here. And I know you always have a lot to say and a lot to share, and your walk in your professional life as insurance commissioner was an important bit of strength for all of us in the caucus.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Holmes Norton. You know, you talk about the struggle and the move to repeal. It obviously didn't place consumers first and foremost in that thought process. It was probably listening to those deep pockets of interest that did not want to be pulled to the table to provide better outcomes for our consumers. Look at the benefits of the health care law for our seniors: 5.1 million seniors receiving savings on their prescription drugs. Actually, I've seen this number as high as 5.3 million, and probably climbing in the short order of time. What an important, significant savings. I hear it all the time from seniors in my district who are always reaching into their pockets after that doughnut hole is hit, and they get the benefit for a while until they hit a certain threshold. As we all know, many, in a short order of months, are digging into their own pockets. These are medications that are required to stay well, and in many cases to stay alive. There are 32.5 million seniors receiving free preventative services-- health care screenings, the annual checkup, flu shots--items that are brought to their benefit in order to, again, underscore the value added of wellness. Strengthening consumer protections for seniors in the part D program, something I heard a lot of favorable review about, and 85 percent of Medicare Advantage plan revenues going toward senior medical care rather than profits for the insurance industry. So these are big changes. These are changes that were welcomed by the senior community. I can tell you, if you close that doughnut hole by the year 2020, as the Affordable Care Act is to do, you're providing a major benefit for seniors, with the advancement of pharmaceuticals that speak to all sorts of illnesses. This is a wonderful opportunity for them to understand the attachment that is essential. I heard of far too many people adjusting their dosages of medications to balance their family's budgets. That is not the best outcome for health care. This advances sound decisionmaking, efficiencies, the best use, the wisest use of resources and, again, speaking to the dignity factor of our country's senior citizens. Representative Marcy Kaptur from Ohio, a great Representative, a strong voice for consumers in this House, thank you for joining Representative Garamendi and me. It's great to have you here. I know that you're hearing a lot in the State of Ohio.

Mr. TONKO. And interestingly, Representative Garamendi, we've been reminded I think by the general public that the legislature, the legislative body here, Congress, took up the bill. They passed it. It went over to the President. He signed it. The highest court in the land, a conservative-leaning court, reviewed it, made their decision and rendered a decision that said it met with constitutionality. People are saying go forward. Move on. Get to the issues that now have got to be resolved, and that is the economy, creating the jobs, producing the post-recession responsiveness that people so much require and deserve, and that's where they're at. We've been joined by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton who has joined us. Representative, thank you for joining us in the Special Order.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. We, I know, are joined by some of our colleagues. But if you want to go through your chart.

Mr. TONKO. This evening we are going to address for the coming hour with a couple of our colleagues the issues of affordable health care and the fact that we see a pattern here that's established by the House that seems to walk away from the needs of a middle class, a working class in this society. Our country depends upon a thriving middle class, one that is given the respect and the dignity it so much deserves. And with the attacks on Social Security with its 76-year old history and the efforts to privatize Social Security, we understand that that would put at risk a number of people. Not a single cent of Social Security was lost to its recipients during the very painful recession. And likewise, in the mid-sixties we saw the emergence of Medicare, which allowed for, again, the dignity factor to be presented and found in the midst of our senior households where, at that point in time, prior to Medicare, those who would retire would anticipate a decline in their income and their economic security simply because of the impact that their health care costs would have on their retirement years. Since then, not only have we seen a stronger sense of security and stability in those senior households, but we have seen a strengthening of the response to the health care needs of our seniors because of the stability that Medicare produced and the quality of the care that has been part and parcel to the Medicare history. And so now, in its infancy, the Affordable Care Act is under threats with the repeal measure that was just taken on this House floor to undo the progress that was achieved for, again, America's health care consumers. It is a troubling notion, at best. This hour of discussion will be dedicated to the concerns that we have for the economic ripple effects that befall the middle class, which needs to be a thriving middle class, and the impact of several of these attacks that seem to undermine the very foundations upon which security is provided to America's great populations. So we're concerned. We're concerned about that repeal and what it means, what is removed from the equation of success that was brought about a couple of years ago as we worked in a bipartisan, bicameral way with the White House to make certain that a growing need out there that found this country as the only industrialized nation to not have a universal health care program, when that is put at risk again because of the efforts to repeal. We are joined by my colleague from California, Representative John Garamendi. John, you witnessed this vote just now to repeal health care. The Affordable Care Act was providing hope and opportunity and promise to all generations in this American mosaic. It is a tragic moment.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the deep cuts proposed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The SNAP program provides low-income families, our disableds, and our elderly essential access to healthy foods. We should not ask our most vulnerable citizens to go hungry to balance the Federal budget. A cut of $16 billion in SNAP benefits will not achieve that balanced budget. SNAP benefits not only provide needed nutritional support to recipients; they support local economies and our farm operations by boosting sales of fresh fruit and vegetables at farmers markets and local grocery stores. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers produce high- quality abundant foods in a system that is the envy of the world. There is no reason for anyone to go hungry in the United States. Let's produce a food and farm bill that each day gives farmers a fair deal and ensures all of our citizens nutritious meals.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I rise in opposition to this rule. There is no reason we could not have an open rule on this legislation--well, unless there are amendments the majority does not want the Members to vote on. Obviously, my colleague, Representative Holt, has offered one such amendment. The Rules Committee did not make his amendment to require companies that earn a profit mining on public lands to disclose their public donations in order. Why not? Vast amounts of secret money are ruining our democracy. It is the ultimate irony that free speech now has such a high cost. Our democracy has truly become the best that secret money can buy. That's not good news for the average voters who do not have tens of thousands of dollars to shower on their preferred candidates. Representative Holt's amendment would shine some light on this practice and ensure that the entities profiting from public resources are accountable to the electorate. The public, I believe, has a right to know, a right to know who is funding our elections. Apparently, under this rule, they don't even have the right to know where Members of this House stand on this issue.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Thank you to my fellow New Yorker. I rise today opposed to the 31st edition of this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against it. Just what are we doing here today on the floor of this House? Are we passing jobs bills that will help the middle class? No. Are we working together to help America recover from the recession? No. Are we passing a bill that has any chance of being signed into law? No. So what exactly are we doing? Are we politically posturing during an election year? Yes. Are we voting to repeal a law that more Americans support than oppose without any hint of a plan for replacement? Yes. Are we voting to deny 6.6 million young adults health benefits under their parents' insurance? Yes. Are we voting to raise costs for some 5.3 million seniors who pay for their prescription drugs? Yes. Are we voting to deny 17 million children with preexisting health conditions the opportunity for coverage? Yes. Are we voting to take away free screening and preventative checkups? Yes. So, Mr. Speaker, we can do better than this. Mr. Speaker, we must do better than this. The Supreme Court--the highest court in the land, a conservative- leaning court--has ruled, and the debate has ended over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Instead of repealing the health care bill for the 31st time in 19 straight months in a Congress that has done absolutely nothing to create jobs, isn't it time to move on to something--anything--that will help our struggling middle class? Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of the games played on this floor. Let's end this debate and get back to work--work that will find us passing bills, that will help grow jobs, work that will find us working together to inspire a thriving middle class.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, for a great number of hours today in this Chamber, there has been a great debate on whether or not to repeal the Affordable Care Act when we know fully that the chances are slim to move forward and the measure would not be signed into law. Is it political posturing? I believe it is, of a grand style. There's a pattern being established here. There's been an attack-- outright attack--on Social Security, attempts to privatize the system. It's been under attack for the last 76 years. It's been the underpinning that provides stability for working families across this great Nation. It has been a security piece that has enabled many to have at least assurances that there would be some support in family budgets as they move month to month. We know that that measure, Social Security, has been dealing with its enemies for a long time--since before it was made a law. Likewise, Medicare, which came to us in the mid-sixties, enabled our senior community to have its health care needs met, provided predictability and stability for retired households, enabled people to enjoy a quality of life, a better quality of health care. We know that before Medicare, many of those who had retired expected to see their economic security dip south because of the expected cost of providing health care when they, perhaps, could not get that coverage in an insurance context. So Medicare, as we know it today, would be undone by the Republican majority in this House. They would prefer to privatize Social Security, allow us to reach to the financial sector to, perhaps, see a repeat of what happened to so many individuals and families out there with this past recession, where they saw their lifetime savings wiped away, trillions lost in the American economy, pain and suffering endured by families across this land. They'd rather see a voucher system for Medicare, handing it over to the insurance companies, to leave seniors digging deeper into their pockets. So the pattern has been established here, and now a repeal of the Affordable Care Act before its full implementation, before given a chance as we arrive as the last industrialized Nation in the world to provide a universal health care coverage program. Unacceptable. Progress is struck. A decision is rendered by the highest court in the land, a conservative-leaning Court. Before the ink is dry on that decision, a move to repeal. The Court spoke. It has spoken to America and said the litmus test for constitutionality was debated and a decision rendered that said, yes, in fact, it meets the constitutionality test. And so this evening, on the eve of the attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act as it stands, is a very telling moment. It is one that suggests to us that there is this outright attempt to undo programs that serve our middle class so very well. And without a thriving middle class, our Nation is not prosperous. Without that thriving middle class, there's not purchasing power strong enough to provide the recovery of our economy. Without a strengthening of our middle class, there is not a confidence in the economy, a confidence that is needed so as to grow more customers for our business base. And so the Affordable Care Act is offering promise and hope to millions, tens of millions, of Americans across this land. Whether you're insured, underinsured, uninsured, all categories will see strengthening because of this measure. Think of it. I represent a large proportion of senior citizens who are concerned about their pharmaceutical costs. Many dealing with that doughnut hole have reached that threshold that requires them to dig into their pockets. We close that doughnut hole. We make more affordable the prescriptions that are required for people to stay well and, in some cases, to have the medications that keep them alive. We deny that opportunity to our Nation's seniors. We deny the respect that we offer. We deny the dignity in the equation that speaks to affordable outcomes for the pharmaceuticals that our senior community requires. That doughnut hole would have been closed by 2020. Further, at the other end of the age spectrum, many young adults, finding it difficult in this recession--and now the recovery period--to gain a job as they perhaps leave high school or college, are given the opportunity with the Affordable Care Act to remain on their family's policy until the age of 26. Therein lies a strong benefit for some 6.6 million young adults, denied with the repeal measure, denying access and affordability to health care situations. How many cases of young adults impacted by catastrophic illness or accidents will it require to turn the hearts and the minds in a positive direction, that would not forego this opportunity for our Nation's young adults? A strong benefit associated with this package. What about those who have a preexisting condition? Some 17 million children in that category. And that's not to account for the many adults who would be denied because of preexisting conditions. Asthma in children, diabetes in our senior community, being a woman, utilized as a preexisting condition, an opportunity to deny coverage and the basic core need that we should consider to be truly American. Another benefit lost to the greedy notion of repealing success that was achieved in this House and the United States Senate and signed into law by this President. What about the efforts to deny lifetime benefits as a threshold? Cutting people off of an insurance coverage at perhaps a very demanding time in their lives. Games played with people and their lives and their recovery; hope pulled from working families across this Nation because of an insensitivity of this Congress. A deplorable situation. Assistance to our small business community. Now, if we profess our small business community to be the economic engine that is part and parcel of our economic comeback, our economic springboard, then would we not want to provide assistance in that basic core need area? Would we not want to allow tax credits to come the way of our small business community? Many, a majority of those businesses will remind all of us as Representatives that they want to provide for their employees. They want a productive workforce. That means a strong and well workforce. And so they see it as a strong investment; one, however, that they could not afford in recent years because of the escalating costs, 18 percent larger bill than industry and perhaps weaker coverage. They wanted that turned around. They wanted a smart approach, a businesslike approach, a sensitive response. They got it with the Affordable Care Act. Progress denied, the small business engine weakened by this sort of neglect that could be advanced in this cited pattern of undoing Social Security, privatizing Social Security, changing Medicare as we know it forever, now repealing the Affordable Care Act. We see the pattern. We see the gross neglect, the disrespect for America's middle class, her working families. So we go forward and we understand that, with the opportunities of an exchange, small employers, our small business community understands that if they're unable to enter into an exchange where all the private sector participants agree to play by the rules, to sharpen their pencils, roll up their sleeves, provide the service, live within the parameters, and allow for the many to enter into a common exchange to provide corresponding benefits. Think of it. If 1 of 10 in that employee firm of 20 were to be impacted with catastrophic illness, it's devastating, an actuarial impact that hits that small business owner hard in the pocketbook because of the premium increase for that 1 person of the 10 you employ. If those same 10 employees were allowed to enter the exchange, a better outcome, a different outcome, a stronger outcome for the economic recovery of this Nation because the gross majority of jobs being produced in this comeback are being done by our small business community. And so, you know, the formula is quite obvious. We want a comeback. We want that strongest response here from Washington for that kick that we endured from a recession that drained us of 8.2 million jobs. The best way to do it, first of three principles, small business. Provide for the strengthening of small business, which the Affordable Care Act does, because that small business community has forever been the pulse of American enterprise. Secondly, invest in that entrepreneur, the dreamer, the mover, the shaker. It always stretched us, since our days of pioneer spirit with the Industrial Revolution and the westward movement, very familiar to the district I represent, which is the donor area to the Erie Canal in upstate New York in the capital region, Mohawk Valley. That pioneer spirit exists in our fabric today. It's our DNA. Invest in the entrepreneur. To be the ideas economy kingpin, we rely on these wizards to build us, sustain us, stretch us, empower us. And then finally, invest in a thriving middle class, which the Affordable Care Act does. It enables us, as a middle class community, to be bolstered by the confidence, the security, the stability that has come with this success story in guaranteeing access and affordability to quality health care that will underscore the value of wellness and not just deal with illness, that will put together efforts to cost contain, that will bring people into a structured program so that we can monitor their activities and connect them to a system. You know, you'll hear from some on the floor, we don't want to pay for this. It's going to cost us too much. We're paying today for the neglect, for the consequences of a not-so- perfect system. Status quo will not cut it, and so we need to go forward with progressive policies, with the soundness of reform, with the boldness of transition, with the confidence we can instill, with the progressiveness of policies that we can draft. And so it is a sad note here echoed in this Chamber, that would attempt to unravel, dilute, destroy, deny the promise we can make to America. As I look at this effort for a comeback, the containment of health care costs is just one of those areas that we need to help control. Create that better environment in which to grow jobs, cultivate a prosperity. It's important. It's important for us to understand that it is part of an economic recovery equation. But there's also the wisdom of investing in education, in higher education, again, under attack by a system that does not always profess the strength of research and education and patents and discovery. We understand that we are in the midst of a global race on innovation, clean energy and ideas and high tech. To be outstanding competitors, to arrive at that race ready to conquer, we will need to be strong and fit in order to be the winning agent on that global scene. We saw that order of passion. We saw that order of investment in the global race on space just decades ago. This Nation, impacted by a Sputnik moment, dusted off its backside and said, Never again. Never again. And what was the result? Together, a Nation grew in its commitment to winning the global race on space. We are going to be that agent, that Nation, that proud people that would stake the American flag on the Moon. And we won that race because of a commitment, because of investment in the soundness of the people of this great country and her business community. We embraced research. We embraced science. We believed in our strength as a people, and the confidence exuded was the elixir that brought us to the victory. Where is that like passion today? Where is that leadership? A rather youthful President that led us in the sixties and challenged us, in almost replication today, finds us, interestingly, to be challenged by a rather youthful President asking us to enter into the global sweepstakes, committing with passion to the cause. And so we need that investment in education, in higher education and research. Just today, in Schenectady, New York, in the 21st Congressional District of New York that I'm proud to represent, we announced formally the creation of the advanced battery manufacturing center at that facility of GE. CEO Jeff Immelt traveled for the celebration, came to town to announce this wonderful, wonderful addition. That is America at work with her genius activity. That's America determined to win the global race on ideas. Advanced battery manufacturing, the battery, the linchpin to so much potential out there, to grow domestic supplies of energy, to grow jobs as we grow our energy future, to reduce the gluttonous dependency on fossil-based fuels, oftentimes imported from some of the most unfriendly nations to the United States, sending hundreds of billions of dollars annually to those foreign treasuries that are then used to train troops to fight against our own daughters and sons on the battlefield. Unacceptable. There is a better way, and this Congress knows it. We invest in jobs. We invest in health care. We invest in education. We invest in research. We do it in a way that promises our best attempt as a Nation to generations yet unborn. Someone was there for us, and we need to be there for future generations of Americans to provide the sort of cutting-edge opportunity that will spell America at her best. I look at that opportunity for not only battery manufacturing but nanotechnology and semiconductor signs, chip manufacturing. The newly designed 20th Congressional District in New York that comprises a good portion of the now existing 21st District that I represent is probably one of the most technology invested-in congressional districts in the country. It is happening because there is this belief in the worker, a belief in the entrepreneur, a belief in the small business community, a belief in the industrial context of the district, and knowing full well that America's needs--be they for the environment or energy's sake or business creation, job creation, business opportunity--are inspiring this remarkable progress. It requires our moving forward with a plan. It requires our moving forward academically with the soundness of policy and with the corresponding resource advocacy that will yield lucrative dividends. I see it all the time. I see it in energy-efficiency programs that produce jobs, that enable us to capture waste heat. That is part of the energy process, enabling us to be much more efficient. Efforts that enable us to create more and more patents in a world that has grown much more competitive, much more sophisticated we can ill afford to weaken in our attempts to be the kingmakers of the international economy. The old American spirit, the history of this Nation replete with those rags to riches scenarios, that became the reason and the inspiration for the compilation of journeys made by our ancestors to these shores, because the opportunity called the ``American Dream'' became the prize for which they searched. I see it in my own roots. The proudest label I carry in life is as the grandson of immigrants. Their journey gave me great opportunity, and it gave my family great opportunity. Those journeys chased after the American Dream. We need, beginning in this House Chamber, to reignite the American Dream, to go back to the core essence of who we are as a people, to reach into that American heart and soul that has forever relied on its passion that we can achieve because we have opportunity, and that we will not deny that opportunity, that we will strengthen the boldness of those dreams and enable us to respond to the needs of the moments and the future and to write our legacy as a generation of Americans. Let us not fail in that attempt. Let us continue to reach deep into that American spirit. At a time when we were challenged and our economy was brought to its knees by failed policies that did not manage well, that did not provide for the stewardship of our resources, and when we tripped and fell, let it be known that, in the recovery, we were stronger than ever before. Because of that belief that our best days lay ahead of us, the belief that those best days were in the future, we moved forward, and we dug deep into that American spirit to respond with the respect for America's middle class. Our middle class--all of us in that middle class--have always understood if you play hard, if you abide by the rules, if you roll up your sleeves and do your best, you could rightfully anticipate the taste of success. That is America in her most shining moments, and that is an economy that we can produce. It begins with the soundness of a strong and productive workforce that went through training and retraining, that got to taste the potential for success by that self discovery that comes with education, and to then understand our gifts so that we could share them in the most profound way, and then to provide for the wellness of that workforce so it could be most productive, so that the conditioning that came with that sort of commitment and that order of respect and that potion of dignity could then allow for us to speak to a Nation that was humbled by its own beginnings, where the rightful stories of so many who made it their journey were written by a Nation that believed in her people. So, tonight, on this eve of an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, let us understand that our budget here in Washington, our actions with legislation, our responsiveness to the needs of the American people are an establishment of our priorities--a prescription of what we see our future to be--a reaching into the heart to say that we are a truly caring lot. That's what separates us from other nations. It is the uniqueness of America and her greatness. The Affordable Care Act is a measurement of not only sound policy; it is a statement of a compassionate society that understands it's not about oneself, that it's about neighbors, that it's about community, that it's about The Great Society. It has been the history through the decades, through the vintages of time, that has enabled us to reach to the greatness of our government, to reach to the soundness of ideas and innovation, to respond to the challenges that have enabled us to build upon those who preceded us, always anticipating that the next generation would be made stronger. We owe it to our children and grandchildren and generations yet unborn. Let them look at this moment in history, American history, knowing that America was challenged, that she stepped up to the plate and said ``yes'' to her people and truly made a difference, and allowed people to understand full well that the best days of this great Nation lie ahead of us. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw our colleagues' attention to the OP-ED that appeared in Roll Call's online issue on June 20 authored by Tim Warfield, the Executive Director of the National Association for State Community Services Programs. The OP-ED, which I have included below, addresses the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), our nation's largest residential energy efficiency program. Energy efficiency represents one of our greatest opportunities to reduce energy expenditures for industry, government, and for individual citizens. Dollars we do not have to spend to heat or cool homes and buildings are dollars that can be invested elsewhere. Reducing energy use extends the years we can use non-renewable energy sources and brings us closer to achieving the goal of energy independence. Buildings represent a significant proportion of our energy use and heating and cooling expenditures are a significant portion of household budgets. At a time when we want to create jobs and lower energy costs for our constituents, programs like WAP should receive our full support. I am disappointed that the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we passed earlier did not maintain funding for this important program. As Mr. Warfield's editorial points out, the funding level in the House bill will not sustain this important program through 2013. I hope our colleagues in the other body will do better. [Special to Roll Call; June 20, 2012] Warfield: Weatherization Is Effective Investment (By Tim Warfield) The Weatherization Assistance Program employs workers in every state and county in America and has weatherized more than 7.1 million homes over the past 35 years. Weatherization has proved its value and is a highly successful and effective investment in the American workforce--weatherization improvements funded by the 2009 stimulus law alone created 14,000 new jobs, according to the White House Recovery.gov website. Weatherization reduces household energy use by almost 35 percent in the typical weatherized home, allowing families to use their limited funds for other necessities. The reduction in energy demand also reduces our nation's reliance on foreign oil. The success of a program that brings the threefold benefit of jobs, household savings and energy conservation is a powerful argument to sustain and fully fund the program, yet it still has its opponents on Capitol Hill, where two Republican House Members have introduced bills to abolish it. Unfortunately, much of the information that has been presented as an argument to cut funding is a disingenuous misrepresentation of facts. Opponents have created the false impression that remaining stimulus funds will allow the program to serve just as many households in 2013 as it did before the program expansion under the 2009 law. This misstatement occurred again during floor debate recently on the House Energy and water development appropriations bill. The argument about ``available funds'' would seem to demonstrate that the Weatherization Assistance Program can absorb proposed cuts and still maintain services at a fiscal 2010 level. This characterization is entirely wrong. Program opponents in the House are taking advantage of the confusion that arises because the ``program year'' is not the same as the federal fiscal year. The program year was set later in the year at the Weatherization Assistance Program's inception so it wouldn't suffer the disruptive and costly effects of funding gaps that might result from prolonged federal budget negotiations. In most states, the new program year begins in April, and by that time almost all stimulus funding will be spent. Nominal amounts will remain in three states, but in the vast majority the ``available funds'' that program opponents propose to use for the 2013 program year will already be used up. Additionally, regular appropriations are similarly depleted, with the $68 million provided for 2012 being far below a sustainable level. States have already begun slowing down operations and eliminating jobs. The funding levels debated on the Hill threaten the nationwide network and many states will be hard pressed to operate a program at all in fiscal 2013. For example, at the $54 million level in the House-passed bill, Arizona, Hawaii and Delaware could weatherize about a dozen homes each in 2013, effectively forcing them to halt services. The ripple effect will disperse a well-trained workforce, reduce purchases from vendors that provide supplies, leave the government investment in equipment and vehicles unused, and leave many families to struggle financially because of high utility bills. Rather than dismantling a beneficial and cost-effective operation that has been successful for 35 years, Congress should allocate funds to sustain the program at its true pre- stimulus level of $220 million to $240 million. We are mindful of the difficult budget choices that face Congress, but these choices should be made based on facts. The facts show that the Weatherization Assistance Program performs a vital role in reducing the burden of high energy prices on low-income families. The program creates jobs and strengthens the economy through the purchase of materials and equipment from the private sector. Each dollar is multiplied as it flows through our communities. Congress must restore the program to pre-stimulus levels to maintain an effective commitment to weatherization, maintain the trained workforce and provide a much needed economic boost to a fragile economy. Don't allow distortions of the facts to put the truly effective 35-year effort that is the Weatherization Assistance Program in peril.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4480, which I heard my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Markey, refer to as the ``Deja Preview Act'' or the ``Big Oil Drain Act.'' Any student of history will tell you that the Congress was not designed to be efficient--while there were some good reasons for that-- but deliberately celebrating that particular design of Congress with yet another partisan, short-sighted piece of legislation that moves United States energy policy backward is truly disappointing. H.R. 4480 leaves our energy policy stuck somewhere in the 1950s. While other nations are making serious investments to diversify their energy supplies, support new clean energy businesses, and become less dependent on traditional fossil fuels, we are marching in place. H.R. 4480, with its gag order on renewables and energy efficiency, is another missed opportunity and a waste of time. H.R. 4480 is nothing more than a wish list for Big Oil companies at a time when these companies are making record profits on the backs of America's taxpayers and her middle class. Our energy crisis isn't that we need to drill for more oil. In fact, we're actually quite good at it as we saw in Representative Markey's presentation. This bill will only make us more dependent on a limited resource that is priced on the global market and enjoys a century-old taxpayer giveaway while making record profits on the backs of our middle class. The answer to our energy crisis is to diversify our supply, support new clean energy businesses, become less dependent on fossil fuels--to focus on the demand side of the energy equation as much as we do our supply side. While we consider this bill, policies that would provide modest assistance to companies that are working on solar, wind, fuel cells, combined heat and power, geothermal and energy efficiency, to name a few, are languishing in committee. These are the technologies that will take us into the future, a bold future. True, they are not yet ready to provide all the energy we need, but that is all the more reason for us to help them move forward aggressively. Jobs in the industries I've mentioned, good-paying jobs, are at risk due to our failure to renew the production tax credit, the 1603 program, and the research and development tax credit. We are stifling job growth and innovation with this act. Eventually, traditional fossil fuels will run out. Already, the human health and environmental costs of extracting and using these fuels have risen tremendously. We choose to ignore this at our peril, or at least at the peril of the next generation and generations to come. Over the past 40 years, the Clean Air Act has shown we can have both clean air and a vibrant economy. Since 1960, air pollution has decreased by more than 70 percent, while the economy has grown by more than 200 percent. But this bill is likely to eliminate jobs, while making the air we breathe more toxic. But that doesn't seem to matter to the majority in the House. It does so by eliminating standards for cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels, likely costing nearly 25,000 jobs a year for 3 years. Yet more backward motion. The public lands policy put forward today and in yesterday's legislation is an insult to the previous generations whose foresight and concern for future generations granted us a rich inheritance of natural resources in our wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, and national parks.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore my colleagues to abandon their my-way-or-the-highway approach to the job-creating highway bill currently in conference. We cannot afford to kick the can down the road again. During the recent recession, 1.9 million jobs were lost in the construction sector. There are still about 1.4 million unemployed construction workers. But reauthorizing a long-term highway bill, as is encouraged by the President, would begin to fix this problem. In my district alone, 25 years ago, on April 5, 1987, the Thruway bridge collapsed at 10:50 a.m. on a Sunday morning near Fort Hunter, New York. Ten people died. They included three men returning from a bowling tournament, a mother and a daughter heading to a baby shower, two Shriners, a married couple driving to Texas, and a truck driver heading to Wisconsin. The cause was failure to properly maintain the bridge. No price can be put on the lives that were suddenly ended that very tragic day, but their memory should serve as a stark reminder that our failure here has real, painful, life-taking consequences. Let's move forward and invest in America's infrastructure--to put construction workers back on the job, to help businesses grow, and to keep our drivers and truckers safe.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin Act of 2012, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out projects and conduct research on water resources in the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin. The bill also establishes a river basin commission to unify the five States and five sub-basins that comprise the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin--the Nation's most densely populated river basin--to manage the vital water resources that bind together the communities, economies, and heritage of the northeast region in an integrated, holistic manner. For too long, the five sub-basins of this basin have been addressed as independent entities. There is no overarching organization to facilitate coordination and collaboration of the many efforts underway within each of these areas. The landscape, however, operates differently. It functions as a whole. These sub-basins are intimately connected to each other by the waters that course through their streams and tributaries to eventually reach the New York-New Jersey Harbor. Actions taken by individual entities within each sub-basin have impacts that extend beyond local borders. Years of progress in environmental sciences inform us that ecosystem-based management and watershed-level planning will result in the most sustainable outcomes. A river basin commission would provide the forum to facilitate a whole-basin view. Our country has a long experience of using commissions to bring different jurisdictions together to promote sound management of common resources. In the West, there was early recognition that the seven basin States of the Colorado River needed to work together to ensure equitable access and proper management of the Colorado River. In the East, the Delaware, Susquehanna, and Potomac River Basin Commissions and the Appalachian Regional Commission have guided cooperative efforts of neighboring States to develop and manage important common resources for the benefit of the region. The Hudson-Mohawk River Basin deserves similar attention. A 2007 study by Canadian authors Dalton, Dalton, and McLean documented the current management regime in the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin. The findings are staggering, including over 2,000 distinct governmental organizations: 12 federal agencies, 67 State agencies, 66 county agencies, and over 1,700 municipal agencies with some jurisdiction over land and water use. There are also over 200 non- profit organizations that focus on issues related to land and water management throughout the Basin. These statistics are indicative of the intense interest that residents and communities in the Basin have in its resources and their management. The New York Ocean and Great Lakes Ecosystem Conservation Council created in 2006 was an important step forward recognizing the need to manage New York State's coastal areas through ecosystem-based management. The Council plays a vital coordinating role for State agencies and for the many local governments, non-profit groups, businesses, and citizens who depend upon our coastal ecosystems. These systems are influenced by the waters that flow into them and connect them through the Hudson, Mohawk, Passaic, and Raritan Rivers. The sheer number and diversity of organizations operating within these five basin States present a significant challenge to considering projects and policies that impact the basin in a holistic manner. Despite these hurdles, these many entities have provided tremendous vision, stewardship and creativity for many years. A commission would be in a position to build upon their work and provide the five States of the basin a single forum for working together with the Federal Government to coordinate and encourage cooperation among the many interested parties who have a stake in the basin. Development of a basin-wide plan that places the individual on-going efforts into a whole-basin context would facilitate our ability to apply ecosystem- based management principles in a consistent and efficient manner. The Mohawk and Upper Hudson sub-basins contribute over half of the flow of water to the lower Hudson River. Water quality in these basins directly impacts quality in the Lower Hudson. Yet, in comparison to the Lower Hudson, these two areas have far less institutional infrastructure and have received far less attention in the ongoing effort to restore the health of the Hudson River and its estuary. The Lower Hudson is a great success story--one that I would like to see repeated for the Mohawk and Upper Hudson. The locally-spawned efforts of dedicated citizens to embrace the Lower Hudson, advocate for its stewardship, and work to improve its floodplain served as the impetus for State government to become more involved. The goal of this legislation is to create a basin commission in order to assist these communities further and to engage the other sub-basins to accelerate development of their water resource programs by imitating successful programs of the Lower Hudson. The organizational infrastructure of the Lower Hudson Sub-basin provides an excellent foundation for building similar organizational strength in the Mohawk and Upper Hudson Sub- basins. Stronger partnerships among communities in the Upper Hudson and Mohawk Sub-basins will enable these regions to redesign and rebuild infrastructure to promote economic development, provide better flood protection, and improve water quality that will complement the efforts of downstream communities and improve conditions not only in the immediate area but also in the Lower Hudson and the Harbor. The Raritan and Passaic River Sub-basins have, for too long, been viewed as mature industrial corridors rather than as sources of community revitalization and economic opportunity. Through the efforts of the State of New Jersey in partnership with the Federal Government and many dedicated non-profit organizations like the Raritan Headwaters Association and the Passaic River Coalition, water quality of these mighty rivers has improved in recent decades. However, more effort is needed if these watersheds and the marshes and bays of the New York-New Jersey Harbor are to be restored to ecological health and the New York Bight is to reach its full environmental and economic potential. The excellent work being done by the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program and Hudson River Estuary Program--the latter of which was recently expanded to Troy, NY--would be aided greatly by improvements in the water quality of the rivers that eventually flow into the Harbor. EPA and other agencies acknowledge the importance of a holistic approach, and I believe that formation of a whole basin plan will afford us the opportunity to build upon the successes achieved in each of the Sub-basins and to magnify their impacts throughout the Basin. In addition, the comprehensive plan developed by the commission through an inspired, collaborative process with the public would provide the framework for additional Federal resources for the region. My legislation is modeled on other successful regional programs and river basin commissions. The Governors of each of the five basin States would serve on the commission along with the Secretary of the Interior as a representative of the Federal Government. The Commission is charged with planning and implementing projects and policies that govern the use of water resources in the basin. The Commission would adopt an annual budget including information about individual projects and their costs, along with identifying the appropriate financing. The bill provides the Secretary of the Interior with $25 million per year to fund projects that are consistent with the comprehensive plan and spelled out in more detail in the water resources program. The Commission's plan, developed in consultation with the member States, Federal agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and all other water users, will tie together the many organizations and interests throughout the basin to tackle large-scale projects. The plan must be developed in collaboration with citizens and local communities. It would provide a unifying vision for the basin and its water resources. And, as I have indicated above, the plan developed through a collaborative process will build a basin-wide organizational structure that will give basin states and communities the framework to compete for additional resources for the region. The natural and historic resources of the Hudson-Mohawk River Basin are fundamental building blocks that we can use to re-invigorate local communities throughout the Basin. The devastating flood events that occurred in many communities in the Basin last year compel us to re- think our connection to the rivers and tributaries throughout the Basin. Our interconnectedness was visible to the naked eye. We need to better adapt our infrastructure to be more resilient to floods. But more than that, if we integrate improvements in water quality and wildlife habitats into plans for the redevelopment of waterfronts, we will reconnect citizens and communities to the river to yield recreational, community, and economic benefits. As communities are drawn together through the public planning process authorized in the bill, they will be able to work on common priorities and launch a new chapter of prosperity in the history of the Basin. The Hudson-Mohawk River Basin, together with the Erie Canal, connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. The Hudson-Mohawk River Basin is the cradle of our American democracy. The footprints of the earliest North American civilization and the early development of our modern Nation are replete and scattered throughout this entire region. The waters of the Hudson, Mohawk, Raritan, and Passaic Rivers formed our early transportation networks and provided the food and power that enabled us to forge the Nation and initiate the early westward expansion of the country we know today. Essentially, the water of the Hudson-Mohawk Basin is the ink that wrote our early history. This important common heritage should be revered and celebrated. It has been more than 400 years since the first European settlements were established in the watersheds of the Hudson, Mohawk, Raritan and Passaic Rivers. We should keep faith with those early pioneers and ensure a bright future for our children and generations to follow by working together to maintain the health and beauty of these mighty waterways and promoting economic development compatible with these great environmental assets. I believe the establishment of a Hudson- Mohawk River Basin program with a river basin commission to guide this effort will help us to accomplish these worthy goals.