Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Congresswoman Edwards and Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I would say, too, that Medicare, yes, speaks to the health care needs of senior households, but there's also a stability there. There's a security so that some of the available expenditures that are out there today from seniors investing in their community, spending in their community, would be lost. And so the economic recovery, then, again, gets threatened. And when I look at this, all through that blob of color of which you speak, all during that time was like a loss of 8.2 million jobs. So where was the quantifiable benefit of all of this relief to those perched way high on the income ladder? There wasn't a corresponding benefit. So we need to recognize what works and works well. And when Medicare has worked for all these years, why would we threaten it? And what I think bothers me most--I'm on the Budget Committee, and today we had a hearing with Secretary Sebelius. And when you talk about bending that health care cost curve, the Republican plan, after they end Medicare and they toss it to the market for the shopping to be done by our senior community, there's no bending of the cost curve. They're saying sharpen the pencil, bottom-line benefit through competition to help our seniors. We have watched, Representative Jackson Lee, since the start of Medicare the private sector insurance costs have risen by over 5,000 percent, that's 5,000 percent. The track record on Medicare, no administrative burden to speak of--no heavy one--no marketing budget, no wasteful expenditures and no high profit columns, we've seen back-to-back profit columns go out of sight for these industries. And when we look at this, when we say we need to go to the bank to borrow, that's helping the friends in the big bank industry. When we need to put it in the private sector and end Medicare, that's helping the deep pockets of the insurance industry. This is like helping those who are looking for more business at the expense of containing costs, bending a health care curve, providing for dignity for the senior community and shedding a program that has worked for nearly half a century and that people have advocated should be there for their children and their grandchildren and generations yet unborn. That is uniquely American. That's uniquely American. It shows and expresses a degree of sensitivity, of compassion and of ability to make things happen. A budget, a plan that we put together here is merely a listing of our priorities. What do we deem most essential? And when you can reach 46 million, 47 million people in their golden years and provide guaranteed health care, that ought to be a high priority, not taking the savings of ending Medicare to pay for millionaire tax cuts, billionaire tax cuts, or oil industry handouts. Let's get real. Let's get real here. Let's get compassionate. Let's be understanding that what we're ending has a tremendously sound bit of history.

Mr. TONKO. Well said, Representative Jackson Lee. You know, for us to now quickly approach this deadline by which the debt ceiling has to be raised and to put the added pressure of ending Medicare into that discussion is vulgar. Forty-six million Americans are watching this. And they know that they're at risk here simply because people want to unnecessarily attach the end of Medicare into this discussion. And as Representative Edwards said earlier, we've improved it with the Affordable Care Act, we've allowed for no deductibles, no copayments for annual checkups and for certain screenings. We're making it stronger. We're trying to get prevention in there to bend that cost curve. Many of us are looking to allow for bulk purchasing of pharmaceuticals, which we do with Medicaid and we do with the VA program. But it was not allowed when the Bush agenda was authorized. Representative Edwards, that chart that you're holding there tonight is still haunting me because I look at all of that debt that was assumed for tax cuts for millionaires that now they want to do again, continue forward, and I look at the wars that were not paid for, I look at the, again, the Medicare part D program that was part of that growth of debt that we're now being asked to pay as the bills have accrued, the interest that we would have to pay if we don't raise that debt ceiling is astronomical. So, again, we welcome you to the floor this evening on a very important discussion. And your thoughts. You were going into the concerns about Medicare being ended for those that count on you to be their voice here in the House.

Mr. TONKO. And now to Representative Edwards, and then we will be through.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely.

Mr. TONKO. Or end them.

Mr. TONKO. Again, if you would suffer an interruption, when we talk about the beginning days of Medicare, the propensity to do something then would become the same cause today, because people were being impacted by cherry picking, by unaffordable rates, by inaccessible outcomes, where there was absolutely no desire to write a policy for some. And as we look at that age curve rise exponentially, I mean the life expectancy, I believe, in 1965 was 70 years of age. That has grown tremendously. And so now you are going to have more and more people living longer, and we need to help strengthen Medicare. But to end it at a time when people would go back to this rat race of trying to find someone to cover you, it puts the insurance company back in the driver's seat. Seniors would have precious little control over their destiny. And what I think can be documented clearly from that time in 1965, 1966 is that the economic vitality of senior households, that durability of their income status was held harmless with Medicare. And it used to dip south because health care costs would drain those retirement incomes in some format that would really impoverish our senior community. We're going to head back into the disaster of pre- 1965.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. Representative Edwards, you struck on a chord that is just repeated over and over again in my district. Many thought, well, if the seniors are told that this will affect senior communities into the future, that they will get buy-in from today's senior citizens. I am impressed with the very generous statements made, the advocacy embraced by our senior community of today saying, This has served me so well, I don't want it denied my children or my grandchildren. And as you pointed out, you know, a 54-year-old of today will have to save about $182,000 out of her or his pocket in order to pick up the slack that would be part of this shop on your own, you know, putting the insurance companies back into control. The senior's going to get a voucher that covers a third of the costs that they need to have health care coverage and then dig into their pockets for the rest. So that means a 54-year-old of today will have to save $182,000, but then the 30-year-old will have to save $400,000. Where are we going with this? This is all to cut a program that has served, with dignity, the senior community of this country, all to pay for the Bush-era tax cuts. So this is a way of sliding savings by ending Medicare and bringing it over to pay for millionaire and billionaire tax cuts and for subsidies to oil companies. This is as vulgar as it can get. And to attach this to a discussion on debt limit, where we look for authorization to pay our bills, just like America's working families roll up their sleeves, earn that money and pay their bills, they expect the government to do the same thing. And to play a game on Medicare where you deny access and affordability for a basic core human need after a record of tremendous performance since 1966 is, I think, so objectionable that it's no wonder when we go home, when you go to Maryland, when I go back to upstate New York, people are saying, Hands off my Medicare.

Mr. TONKO. Very well said. We have about 5 minutes left. I'm just going to do a bit of close and then ask for each of our Representatives that remain here on the floor--we were joined earlier by Representative Chu from California--to offer your sentiments, and then we will bring the hour to a close. What I think is very important to note is that if we can find ways to save on Medicare, we should invest that in Medicare to strengthen Medicare. If we can find ways to save in Social Security, reinvest in Social Security. They deserve to be stand-alones because they are prime, prime opportunities, programs for strengthening the fabric of America's families. So that should be a separate turf and not be using these dollars, these savings as the Republicans would end Medicare, to somehow bring that over in a fungible fashion to pay for these tax cuts. Today, I talked to my medical colleges, and they are going to get impacted by the cuts to NIH. In New York State, we probably have over a billion dollars in revenue streams that go to hospitals for research. So you cut the NIH program, you put more people out of work, and you cut a revenue stream for hospitals that need to train the human infrastructure that will make all of our health care programs work. Similarly, when you look at our need to compete effectively in a global economy on clean energy and innovation, the winner of that race will be the go-to nation that will create stability for generations of their workers. Why shouldn't America be number one in that investment? If we can find savings somewhere or if we do create revenues, they need to go into investments to grow jobs. That's what America told us at the polls last November: we want jobs to be the number one priority. We haven't done a jobs bill in this House; but we've come up and found ways to end Medicare, which right now is so vulnerable to this discussion on the debt ceiling limit. We have to end that crazy plan, and we need to go forward with a sensible plan that enables us to invest in jobs, invest in our senior community, invest in their well- being and to again see these two programs worthy of saving and strengthening; and if we have the economic means, let's do it. Representative Jackson Lee, we will go to you and then to Representative Edwards, and we will be done with our hour.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, first I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for offering this bipartisan amendment with me. He is a leader on energy issues, and I thank him for his support. Mr. Chair, the Tonko-Bass amendment is simple. It will restore three specific, results-driven energy efficiency programs within the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill to last year's levels. It is neither a stretch nor an overreach. It is a balanced approach, and it is fully offset. First, this amendment will restore funding to the Weatherization Assistance Program, or WAP. WAP is the largest residential efficiency program in our Nation. It reduces the energy burden on low-income families and the elderly and disabled, and creates jobs, invests in local businesses, and advances technology, state-of-the-art technology. The 35 percent savings as a result of weatherizing homes under this program saves $437 in annual utility bills for the average homeowner. Second, the amendment restores funding to the State Energy Program or SEP. SEP is the only cost-shared program administered by the United States Department of Energy that provides resources directly to the States for allocation by the Governor for use in energy efficiency. This includes 56 State and territory energy offices. And according to a study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for every $1 in federal SEP funds, annual savings of 1.03 million source Btu's are saved, along with the cost savings of $7.22 and a leveraging of $10.71 on that same $1. Finally, the Tonko-Bass amendment restores funding to the Building Technologies Programs. Buildings in the United States use about 40 percent of our total energy and two-thirds of our electricity. As such, this program seeks to promote American innovation and technologies to reduce operating costs to building owners, which is vital in today's market. Finally, Mr. Chair, this amendment has a net impact of zero dollars on budget authority and reduces 2012 outlays by $58 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It does so by offsetting the increase of spending with cuts to the Weapons Activities Account, specifically to the Readiness in Technical Base Facilities account. The Appropriations Committee report suggests they are seriously concerned with the recent cost growth reported for construction of two major projects in the account. The committee report claims modernization will take several years and the considerable number of variables still at play argues against an excessively aggressive funding curve. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to close by saying I do not believe we can afford to slip any further behind our global competitors in energy investments. A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, creating local, private sector contracting jobs, and providing State control on energy projects. Again, I would like to commend the gentleman from New Hampshire for his leadership on this issue and thank him for his support. I urge adoption of this amendment. To: Southern States Members of the U.S. House of Representatives From: Kenneth J. Nemeth, Secretary and Executive Director Date: July 7, 2011 Re FY12 SEP, WAP and BTP Appropriations under H.R. 2354-- Tonko Amendment As an interstate compact organization representing 16 southern states and two U.S. territories, we are disappointed with the budget cuts to the U.S. State Energy Program (SEP), Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), and the Department of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Program (BTP) under the House Energy and Water Development FY 12 appropriations measure that was approved on June 15, 2011. The Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) has a long and direct relationship with the state energy offices and fully supports their role as a key component of implementing our country's energy policies. I am writing to you to ask for your support of Representative Tonko's amendment to H.R. 2354 to restore funds to the State Energy Program, Weatherization Assistance Program and the Building Technologies Program. Representative Tonko will be circulating a ``Dear Colleague'' letter seeking your support for the amendment and we are urging you to sign in support of the amendment. Mr. Tonko's amendment would add funding for these three key programs to bring them up to FY11 levels as follows: State Energy Program--add $25 million for a total of $50 million Weatherization Assistance Program--add $141 million for a total of $174 million DOE Building Technologies Program--add $62 million for a total of $212 million This Nation's future is reliant on reducing our energy dependence. As a policy maker, it is important to understand the role of State Energy Offices and the importance of the State Energy Program, Weatherization Program and the Building Technologies Program to achieve these national goals. The SEP allows states to support a variety of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects including improvements to schools and hospitals, establishing partnerships with utilities, businesses and industry and facilitating the economic development opportunities for states while maximizing the development of states' renewable energy resources. In keeping with protecting our economy while increasing the efficient use of energy, the U.S. DOE Buildings Technologies Program is essential and requires full FY11 funding levels to continue deploying technologies that will reduce pressure on tight energy supplies and help to restrain prices while protecting the environment. This program encourages innovation for emerging technologies and contributes to our global leadership while creating jobs and strengthening our economy. Also, the Weatherization Program is essential to helping low-income families, the elderly and disabled by improving the energy efficiency of their homes and lowering their energy bills. During the economic strain that we are experiencing all across the country, cutting funding to this program would create even a larger burden on our citizens forcing them into more difficult choices on basic needs. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the Tonko Amendment so that these critical programs can continue contributing toward our Nation's energy goals.

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

Mr. TONKO. For a point of clarification, I would just point out the statutory deadline for the weatherization program and the State Energy Program is on March 31 of any given year, in this case 2012. So, of course, it's not all spent yet. There is expected to be an accelerated spending on these investments that are made. The drawdown on those moneys will come in an accelerated way. But also the intent was a 3- year spend-out. And I think if we pull the rug out from these job creators at this stage, we stand to reduce employment among our private sector contractors, our builders and renovators. What I had seen in New York, especially with the State Energy Programs, they had a 3-year waiting list. There is a great deal of good that comes from this program, and I think everyone in this Chamber is well served by investment in this program. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2219.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, the highest individual government salary funded by the American taxpayer is that of the President of the United States at a total of $400,000, or so I thought. The President is certainly the highest paid public servant, but it turns out that the leader of the free world isn't actually the highest paid executive on the taxpayers' payroll. In fact, the highest Federal Government salaries by far can be earned by private sector executives who are paid up to $700,000 per year directly in taxpayer dollars. I do not mean executives who earn their multibillion-dollar incomes by selling often overpriced and underperforming equipment to our men and women in uniform, though the customer is the Federal Government. Those salaries are paid through transactions in the private sector. No, I am talking about the Federal Government salaries paid directly by the Pentagon and other agencies to private contractor executives, direct salaries paid for 100 percent by taxpayer dollars. You won't find these exorbitant pay rates on government income lists. They certainty aren't subject to the current Federal employee pay and hiring freeze. In fact, that $700,000 maximum salary increases every year to reach even greater heights even as we contemplate cutting other areas of our budget to new lows, including that of our military service branches. These salaries are being paid by a department that has not been able to pass a standard audit in its entire history. It cannot even tell us how many contractors are on its payroll. Madam Chair, the salary of a typical Army private starts at a meager $20,000 per year. General Petraeus, a four-star general with 37 years of active service, the commander of the international coalition in Afghanistan and the next director of the CIA, earns a salary of approximately $180,000. The Secretary of Defense earns about $200,000. How then can we justify salaries of up to $700,000 for defense contractor executives? I understand that there may be contractors who supply services to our Nation that our government cannot perform on its own. However, I am also absolutely certain that there is no one single private contractor whose value to our national security is twice that of the Commander in Chief of the United States military. At a time when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is telling us that the Nation's debt is the number one threat facing America, we cannot continue using taxpayer dollars to pay lavish and unjustifiable private contractor salaries that are more than triple the pay of our military leadership. My amendment simply states that funds in this bill will not be used to pay a Federal Government salary for any individual defense contractor that exceeds the salary of the Secretary of Defense. That salary is level 1 of the executive schedule, or about $200,000. This is a very modest reform. It is not about limiting contracts or contract spending more broadly. It does not deal with outsourcing or insourcing. It does not, in fact, cap contractor pay, which may include private sector projects, profit sharing, or other earnings. It merely deals with the salary paid to contractors directly by the taxpayer, limiting the cost of that compensation in an effort to reduce the deficit and stop paying exorbitant Federal salaries to private sector employees. I think this amendment forms a perfect complement to section 8050 of the underlying bill, which deals with limiting contractor bonuses. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and other modest simple reforms that can help us tackle the deficit. With that, I thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. And you know, you are so right. That preclusion that came in that measure was an outright avoidance of providing a benefit to the senior community. I know the number because we talked about it today in another session. It's $156 billion that could be saved over that 10- year stretch just by bulk purchasing the pharmaceutical needs for the Medicare program.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much, Representative Garamendi. It has been a great opportunity to share this hour with you. We only ask that thoughtfulness guide the negotiations--either on a deficit ceiling bill or on budgets as we go forward--thoughtfulness and a desire to grow opportunity for all Americans. We're at our best when the inclusiveness of this process enables everyone to be empowered and not just the special interests, the wealthy oil industry that has set record profits 2 years in a row. With that, I thank the Speaker for the opportunity, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. And you know, Representative Garamendi, just about an hour ago we were talking about it all being about principles, values, priorities, contrasts, and choices. Well, if we go with the choice to not make it in America, not invest in innovation, research for medical purposes, means that we may not be able to contain those costs of medical needs, of health care, because we will avoid the discovery of better treatments, new cures, prevention elements that all come with the medical research and medical innovation that can be made in America. And then we have opportunities to keep Medicare alive, not destroy it, by containing costs for health care and allowing for the dignity of life and the quality of care to go forward without this treatment to end Medicare. And the choice is to avoid powerful industries like the oil industry, giving them mindless handouts, or do we invest in education, higher education, job creation, quality of life issues, housing opportunities? These are the choices we're talking about. This hour has been, I think, an opportunity for us to exchange, with a clearer expression, what the contrast is on the floor of the House of Representatives and what it is between this Path to Prosperity that we have seen as a Road to Ruin, one that would end Medicare, continue handouts to record profit oil industries, to continue to advocate for millionaire and billionaire tax cuts at the expense of America's middle class that needs a stronger purchasing power and needs to know that her children and grandchildren will have the opportunities, equal opportunities for quality education and a college degree.

Mr. TONKO. Right.

Mr. TONKO. And talk about this sort of innovation economy where you invest in America, you make certain that our infrastructure that moves goods and people is as sound as it can be. But as we invest in the growth of jobs and ``Make it in America,'' and you talk about the clean energy economy, the alternative technologies, the innovation that comes with advanced battery manufacturing, that stops the trail, eventually, of dollars that are exported out of this Nation, going into the Mideast, $400 billion plus a year to maintain this fossil-based economy that has us gluttonously dependent on fossil-based fuels that are imported from unfriendly nations to the United States. There has to be a cleaner way, a more innovative way, one that embraces the American intellect and the ingenuity that enables us to grow products that are not on the radar screen. That's how a great nation continues its greatness; that's how it continues to become even greater, by putting to work its brainpower and developing products that are kinder to the environment, strong in their manufacturing element that produces here in these United States and draws upon the workforce and the R&D potential of everyone from trades up to the Ph.D.s involved in that equation of success. I think it's a way to empower us across the board.

Mr. TONKO. There are quantifiable benefits that come not just with job creation, but with service delivery. If you provide for this sort of basic research, you're providing for cures to illnesses that have continued to haunt the fabric and quality of life of individuals. And if we can discover and unleash that potential, there is a quality of life that's addressed. There's hope that's delivered to the doorsteps of families across this country. And so it goes well beyond job creation. But you're absolutely right. These are jobs that are of high quality, that require, again, the investment of America's know-how. They are opportunities for intellectual capacity that we, as a Nation, invest in higher ed, and this is putting that higher ed product to work.

Mr. TONKO. And when you talk about battery manufacturing, advanced battery manufacturing taking place in my district, you're talking about the linchpin. You're talking about that connector to all of the opportunities out there that transition us into alternative technologies. It begins and ends with that battery development. And we have those opportunities. We've invested in those. We need to continue to take that curve northward so that you put the money down that will grow jobs. That's investing. There is the rightful expectation that there will be lucrative dividends from that investment. And when you look at the global race, this is much similar to the global race on space in the early sixties, when we got knocked on the seat of our pants in the late fifties with the Sputnik moment, and that woke us up, and we involved ourselves, and we embraced with great passion getting that race done in winning style. And we won it. Today we have more competitors. You've got China, Brazil, India, Germany, Japan, all investing in a global race on clean energy and innovation, and we're going to tie our hands behind our back.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. The currency issue is epicenter to the solution that's required. Fair trade is what really allows us to compete effectively. This imbalance that's been able to continue is very harmful to our economy, to the workers of this country. You know, the working families have taken it on the chin. The middle class of America needs that purchasing power, that enhancement of purchasing power. Then you see economic recovery. Then you see people putting people to work because, as that activity continues to grow and snowball, you will require the investment in jobs in all, from service sector on over to manufacturing on over to R&D. And where you plant R&D as a center of invention, of ideas of innovation, there will come to be next door to that planting the manufacturing elements that will allow our manufacturing sector to prosper.

Mr. TONKO. Not for long.