Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Steny. Thank you, Representative Garamendi. I think the tragedy that results from the lack of vision by the new Republican majority in this House, the sadness that results, is that not only is it near 3 months of a new regime with zero numbers of bills as a number of bills that's been approved that would create jobs--that would be bad enough. But it's dismantling success that's been achieved in the last couple of years. That translates into jobs, the health care industry, the innovation economy, dismantling that, disinvesting in America. That's even worse. Instead of standing still, which is tragic, we're going backward, backward, that takes us into what could be the recession of the recent past that was 8.2 million jobs lost. We need to invest. Now, it's a no brainer to assume that if you put R&D into play--and they've dismantled R&D, education, higher education, health care--all of this impacts jobs and the potential to compete with the muscle that America needs. The American public is asking for hope to be built into the fabric of this Nation. We have advanced that message of hope. We're talking about making it in America. We're talking about investing in R&D. Why? Because where R&D takes place is probably where manufacturing follows. It makes sense to incorporate the R&D elements with the manufacturing sector. That's a given in the current economy, in the present day industry. So we need to invest. We need to invest in R&D, rather than cutting drastically the programs that will lead to energy research. I served at NYSERDA as president and CEO, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. I saw what happened with job creation when you create new shelf opportunities, new product lines. And this R&D effort is about taking ideas and moving them along. You prototype, you test, you evaluate, and then you manufacture. And we need to carry those steps through. We need to fund them, we need to invest. It's going to take that kind of effort to grow the economy and grow it in a way that allows us to have reasonable expectation to win the global race on energy, clean energy, and innovation. You don't dismantle education by making drastic cuts. You don't undo the opportunity to dream of a higher education and advance your skill set and allow your dreams to be met, to be tethered. Instead, you invest. We have not done that. I represent a necklace of communities called mill towns that were established with the Erie Canal, Barge Canal District. We created a port out of a little town called New York City, and we developed the westward movement through the mill towns that were established in the district that I represent. That pioneer spirit where these mill towns became the epicenter of invention and innovation still exists. It is still part of the American DNA. And America knows that if we invest, if we instill hope into the equation, they are there. We know that we can make it happen, but it takes the sort of investment and not the denial that we have seen in this House where zero jobs are the result of zero bills being passed here that would promote an American Make It in America campaign, where we would have an American industrial bolstering by this kind of effort. America knows that this is not the action that they called for. This kind of standing still is not good, because it takes us backwards. It takes us backward when we need to build upon the progress that was achieved over the last year where 1.5 million sector jobs were added to the equation. We can do it. We can do it in significant measure. We can do it in cutting-edge fashion where we advance the intellectual capacity of this great Nation, where we are continually investing in the brain power, and we are not tapping into it. Patents are going off shore. Why are we standing here now talking about continuing the mindless effort of subsidies, handouts to big oil companies to the tune of $100 billion, when that could be denied and we could invest, fungibly move those dollars over to investing in R&D for new product delivery so we are not dependent on an oil industry, we are not dependent on disruption in the Mid East, but rather controlling our own energy future, self-sufficiency energy independence. Those are the thematics. Those are the dynamics that should guide us. I don't see that here. We are walking away from it. We are walking away from the sound faith we should have in America's workers. Look what is happening in Wisconsin. Workers are revolting. We need to respect workers. We need to understand that they are the solution. Let's invest in America. Let's invest in Make It America, and let's turn this around. America is placing its hope in the leaders here, and to have the results be zero jobs because zero bills were introduced and passed is unacceptable. And the majority needs to account for the 700,000 jobs they want to kill simply by the cuts they are making to the budget that has been presented.

Mr. TONKO. Well, I think that it is important for us to make certain that we create the renewable industry here in this country. You talked about the challenges of competing with China. Let's look at the proof in the pudding. Let's take a look at what it looked like in 2008. Private sector investment in the United States was at some $32 billion and China was at about $23 billion in terms of private sector investment and renewables. Then fast forward to the next year in 2009, and it flipped. China was at $35 billion, and we are down to $19 billion. We need to be certain we can compete, and we can compete effectively by investing. It is there. The clarion wake-up calls are sounding, and we need to heed them. We need to listen to those alarms that are going off, telling us that without investing into the future, we are going to lose the race. So I want to put a hopeful spin on this. I think that our efforts as Democrats in this House to make it in America are right on. It is what the doctor ordered. We are talking about investing in a clean energy innovation economy, we are talking about investing in higher ed, in R&D. That is how we win it. We win it by a complete commitment to an agenda that is well documented through the years. It is no different now. If we want to win this global race on innovation, we need to march forward aggressively with the resources and with passionate resolve, and we can win it. I believe in my heart we can win it. We just need to commit to the American public that is counting on us to provide the hope at their doorstep.

Mr. TONKO. I will make this one point. Obviously, it is about investments. Not spending, investments. Expecting lucrative dividends, lucrative returns. And who is this cutting frenzy an attack on? It is an attack on middle class America. It is an attack on children, it is an attack on working families, it is an attack on our seniors. And we only get here what we are wanting to invest here. I think that we can go forward with the soundness of policy and a resourcefulness of investments made that allow us to carry us, transition us into a new economy designed intentionally to grow the potential of this Nation. That is what America wants from us, and I think this attack is a tremendously cold-hearted attack on America's working families. It is going to destroy our middle class. Without a strong middle class, there is not a strong America. Someone needs to create the products, build the products; someone needs to purchase the products. And without a strong middle class, without strong purchasing power for that middle class, that story is over. So let's move on. Let's march forward with Make It in America. It is great to join you, Representative Garamendi, for this Special Order.

Mr. TONKO. Sure. Absolutely my pleasure, and, Mr. Garamendi, thank you for bringing us together during this coming hour so that we can address what is the most critical issue: the jobs and the economy. The American public speaks out overwhelmingly to make certain that that is our highest priority here in Congress. In every public opinion survey that you have seen in the last several months, it's about jobs. It's the pledge that we have made since I've been here as a Member of this House. As Democrats in this House, we have been pushing the agenda for jobs. We believe there's no other higher priority. I think of the 8.2 million jobs lost during the Bush recession when there was a willful neglect of the manufacturing sector, of the ag sector of our economy. It was dedicated and directed towards service sector, primarily the financial industry and the investment community. We know what happened. There was not stewardship over that arena. There was not the sort of watchdog application, and we allowed for many people to be hurt by that painful recession, where their lifetimes' worth of savings were invested through portfolios of investment on Wall Street, and because of the greed, they got brought down, and people were left hurting, losing their homes, losing their lifetime savings, and 8.2 million jobs lost to this American economy. So we have got to turn that around. We have begun carefully with the programs and the policies, working with this President, starting in the 111th Congress over a year or two ago where we made certain that jobs, jobs, jobs were the highest priority. We put together a package a policies that would make certain that we would grow jobs in America. We began with some very strong efforts to invest, through the Recovery Act, in those industries that need that sort of launching, that we could somehow take this clean energy agenda, their industry, the innovation economy, and make it work for America, and that affects people in the elements of trades on over to the Ph.D.s. And we saw what happened. In the last year, for instance, 1.5 million jobs added from the private sector column. Now our friends want to put on this cut in domestic programs that every think tank has forewarned would cost us jobs. In fact, many are suggesting 700,000 jobs would be lost if these cuts to the domestic investments that are so important to America's working families would be allowed to have happen. So we need to go forward with a very thoughtful plan that enables us to not only grow jobs, in fact, jobs not yet on the radar screen, but to grow jobs in a way that can allow us to compete, and compete effectively, on the global scene, in that global marketplace; because I agree with the President on this notion: Whoever wins this race on clean energy, the global race on innovation, will become the exporter of energy intellect, energy ideas, innovation. We saw it happen decades ago with the global race on space, and America embraced that with passionate resolve and said we are going to win this race; we're going to invest. President Kennedy set a tone that was a winning tone. It engaged everybody. We worked as a team in this country. People came together in a bipartisan, spirited way, and all we talked about was investing in science and technology and engineering. And guess what? We won that race because we embraced it with passionate resolve. And it wasn't just the poetry of landing a person, an American, on the Moon first where he was quoted as saying, One small step for man; one giant step for mankind, but it was the unleashing of several elements of technology that pervaded every sector of development out there from health care to education to communications to energy generation. And it was using new technology, making the difference by embracing that technological advancement. We not only won the global race on space but created all sorts of technology, science and tech investment in our American industries and our American fabric. That made a difference. And that's the sort of synergy, that's the sort of focus, laser-sharp focus we need today; not the cutting and dismantling of R&D investments that enable us, empower us, give us the muscle to win the global race on innovation, but also to have the sort of human infrastructure developed through investments in education. That's where we need to be. This conference, the Democratic conference in this House has made it its mantra: Make it in America. Bring it back. Rebuild America. Let's show the hope to the American public. Let's make a difference. Let's win this global race on innovation. We can do it. But we won't do it if we disinvest in America, which is happening on this floor. The attempts to disinvest in America will set us back.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, we are some 11 weeks into a new Congress and still we have not seen a single bill focused on job creation from the other side of the aisle. What are they focused on? Allowing big polluters a free pass to pollute the air we breathe and poison the water we drink. In the pockets of Big Oil and Big Polluters, Republicans are advancing the Dirty Air Act, a radical bill that would undo over four decades of public health, scientific advancement, and pollution standards. The Dirty Air Act would ban EPA from exercising its role as the protector of our air and as the protector of our water. For decades, the Clean Air Act has protected children from asthma and seniors from emphysema, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It has created jobs, and we simply cannot undo it. My friends on the other side of the aisle should be focussed on America's priorities, that being job creation and economic growth. Instead, they remain committed to the deep pockets of the dirty energy industry. What is more important, public health for our children and seniors or lining the pockets of the oil industry? I think the choice is very clear. I rise today in support of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, as oil and gas prices continue to rise, American consumers and businesses are facing sticker shock at the pump. The national average is $3.49, and the average in New York's capital region that I represent is $3.69. And yet, rather than take action to bring immediate gas price relief or create incentives to invest in clean energy alternatives that create jobs and grow our national security, the Republican budget would maintain our addiction to foreign oil. The Republican spending bill ignores energy efficiency, clean energy, advanced vehicle technologies, and loan guarantees. What does it leave in place, though? Billions of dollars in subsidies for big oil companies that they have claimed they don't need, especially as they make record profits. And what do we get by throwing billions of hard- earned taxpayer dollars at these big oil companies? Less money in our pockets to get to work and around town. Americans are better than the gasoline we put in our vehicles. It is time we wake up and realize it, and advance research and development.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to shed light on a very serious problem--skyrocketing gasoline prices. In the capital district of New York, prices at the pump today average about $3.50 per gallon. Nationally, the average price is $3.38 per gallon, and it continues to rise. Due to the continued conflict in North Africa and the Middle East, oil is over $100 per barrel. There appears to be no end in sight. For every $10 per barrel rise in the price of oil, America sends an additional $40 billion overseas, yearly. How can we expect to turn around our economy and create jobs when we are sending this much money to our enemies? Plain and simple, we must start thinking outside the barrel--to create jobs and protect our national security. We as Americans are better than the ancient fuel that we put into our vehicles. Using 19th and 20th century oil subsidies in this 21st century is outdated and foolish. We are literally giving away hard-earned taxpayer money to big oil companies that are setting record profits. What do we get in return? Sticker shock at the pump. Mr. Speaker, this is unfair to hardworking Americans that play by the rules. We deserve better. Let's stop this sticker shock.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair. I move to strike the last word. The cuts contained in these sections to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program--LIHEAP--are dangerous, and I rise to oppose them. The Republican continuing resolution cuts $390.3 million in funding from LIHEAP's emergency contingency fund for the remaining seven months of this fiscal year. Those are cuts that are made on the backs of the low-income residents, like those I represent in the cold and snowy Capital Region of New York, who struggle to pay for the cost of home heating oil and natural gas. LIHEAP is a widely supported, essential program that delivers short- term aid to our most vulnerable neighbors, including the elderly on fixed incomes. LIHEAP provides a vital safety net, allowing families and seniors to stay healthy and protected from cold winters and hot summers. It keeps those receiving help from having to make the heart- breaking decision about whether to pay to keep the heat on, or to pay for food and prescription drugs. The numbers of households receiving assistance reached record levels this year, increasing from 7.7 million to 8.8 million. The rise in participation includes only households that are below the maximum income level--$33,525 for a family of four this year. The need for the continued support of LIHEAP is clear--the program was only able to help one in five eligible Americans. Four out of five families in need went without this assistance, and were left out in the cold. The Republican continuing resolution cuts $390.3 million in funding from LIHEAP's contingency fund.The LIHEAP contingency fund allocates emergency funding to states dealing with emergencies, like cold snaps, heat waves, or spikes in energy prices that force low-income Americans to cut off their heat. So far this year, the Administration has released $200 million in contingency funds, illustrating the need for full funding of the contingency fund. I do not think we can afford to let seven more months pass and risk another blizzard, or another heat wave, and leave our nation's vulnerable citizens out on their own. In FY 2010, my home state of New York received about $57.8 million in contingency funds, but in FY 2011 the state has only received about $26 million. These CR cuts would mean that New York loses out on about half the contingency fund money it saw during the same period last year. Given the fact that this winter has been comparably cold and seen substantially more snow, my state and my constituents will be losing out tremendously with these cuts. The continued need for LIHEAP funding is clear to me as I travel around my district and talk to my constituents. Staff in my district offices help connect seniors and low-income families to LIHEAP for desperately needed assistance. Cutting funding for this program is, in my mind, unconscionable. We cannot leave behind our nation's most vulnerable in the dead of winter. The Majority is lauding the fact that this bill represents the largest spending cut in the history of our country. If they want to cut funding to satisfy their base, fine. But I will not stand for cutting LIHEAP funding. I will not support budget cuts balanced on the backs of seniors on fixed incomes, struggling to make it through this cold winter. Madam Chair, I urge defeat of this bill.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I offer this motion to speak out against the blatant attack on clean water, which is contained in section 1747 of this Republican continuing resolution--a provision that does not save the taxpayer one single dollar. As we know, the Clean Water Act became law in 1972 with the stated purpose of cleaning up America's waterways and wetlands. Since then, this landmark legislation has served as a framework for protecting our drinking water from deadly toxins and for preserving the ecological integrity of our waterways. In my home State of New York, from the mighty waters of rivers like the Hudson to the many lakes of the Adirondacks, this legislation has been absolutely critical, where 95 percent of our population relies on public drinking water in some form. Unfortunately, in the last 10 years, millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of streams have lost Clean Water Act protection. Healthy streams and wetlands naturally filter and replenish our drinking water supplies. They absorb flood waters and protect coastlines and support local hunting, fishing, boating, and recreation industries. One-third of Americans get their drinking water from the types of streams that are vulnerable to pollution under recent rollbacks; and this bill includes a provision that would ban the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers from working within their legal authority to mitigate that threat. This is an appropriations bill. According to my colleagues across the aisle, it is a bill with the sole purpose of reducing the deficit--a noble goal. However, the clean water rider in section 1747 of this bill does not save one dime of taxpayer money. It is not about funding. It is about restricting the legal authority of the EPA and the work of the Army Corps of Engineers in an underhanded ``politics as usual'' attack on our drinking water, on our environment, and on the thousands of recreational fishing, hunting and boating jobs that these water resources support. We may have banned formal earmarks this year, but this rider amounts to a handout to big polluters at the expense of basic public health protections. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to discuss section 1746, which would eliminate EPA funding from going to implementation of the Clean Air Act. Over the past 40 years, the bipartisan Clean Air Act has saved hundreds of thousands of lives and improved the health of Americans in every State. It protects the air we breathe. It protects our children from developing asthma and our seniors from developing emphysema. According to the American Lung Association, in 2010 alone the Clean Air Act saved over 160,000 lives. Even since 1990, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness amongst children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths. And yet in the irresponsible Republican spending bill, there's an attempt to eliminate all funding from the implementation of the Clean Air Act. It is clear that the Republican majority is doing all it can to stop EPA from carrying out its mission of protecting public health and protecting our environment. Many will claim that the EPA is moving at a faster pace than any other administration in history. However, the EPA has proposed fewer Clean Air Act rules under President Obama over the past 21 months than in the first 2 years of either President Bush or President Clinton. That is why in December of 2010, 280 groups, including the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and others, sent a letter urging the Congress to ``reject any measure that would block or delay the United States Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job to protect all Americans from life-threatening air pollution.'' The irresponsible Republican spending bill is not the place to legislate these types of changes. These policy changes should not be made during this sort of process. The Clean Air Act is promoting innovation and breaking American oil dependence, but Republicans would give big polluters a loophole to roll back our clean energy process and continue our addiction to foreign oil. The Clean Air Act is good for our economy. Many studies have shown the Clean Air Act's economic benefits to far exceed any costs associated with the law by as much as a 40-to-1 ratio. As President Obama so eloquently spoke of during his State of the Union address, we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our global competitors and win the future. Rolling back a law that protects the air our children breathe to allow oil companies--companies that are already reaping record profits--the ability to spew chemicals, smog, soot, and pollution into the air just to please a lobbyist or a Big Oil corporation is irresponsible and extreme. The Clean Air Act has been on the books for decades, with positive results for our economy, our environment, and our businesses. Rolling back these protections will only hurt our most vulnerable. We simply cannot afford to go backward. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, on the point of order, I am disappointed that the other side submitted a rule that doesn't allow an amendment to save this funding for Social Security and guarantee that checks go out on time; but they can right this wrong right now. My amendment will ensure that checks go out on time. It will ensure that we continue to save billions by allowing Social Security to continue to go forward.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, on the point of order, the Social Security Administration has said that an additional cut in their funding would lead to many local offices closing their doors, stopping all claims processing, and not being able to answer the phones for a month.

Mr. TONKO. I want to be clear so that everyone in this House and everyone watching knows what a $500 million cut to Social Security will do. On the point of order, Madam Chair, my amendment eliminates harmful budget cuts to Social Security, which actually saves more money in the long term than what is cut by the bill.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to speak against the point of order.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I offer this amendment because I am seriously concerned about the effect of the irresponsible Republican spending bill on our Nation's seniors and most specifically on our Social Security system. If my amendment does not pass, $500 million will be stripped from Social Security. In this nearly 400-page irresponsible Republican spending bill, which has held no hearings, which was written and debated through the night and is being rammed through this Chamber, Social Security is put at risk. The bedrock and foundation for so many of our Nation's seniors and retirement is Social Security; and yet this bill would steal half a billion dollars from the program. This is money that helps keep the lights on, the doors open, and the checks going out to those who earned it--those who worked hard and play by the rules. It goes to those who have rightfully paid into the system and deserve their return on investment. And it should not be taken away in the dead of night. Nearly half a billion dollars, if stolen back from Social Security, will be devastating. In fact, we might as well put the sign on the door of Social Security now: Sorry, we're closed for business. That is because a cut of $500 million will lay off employees that process and mail these checks to seniors. It will furlough every Social Security Administration employee for a month or more this year. Every worker that works for the Social Security Administration could potentially lose his or her job for at least 1 month this year. Most of my constituents might say, Well, I don't really know anybody that works for the Social Security Administration. What does that mean for me? Unfortunately, it means 400,000 people across these United States will not have their claims processed this year. Think of it. You're finally eligible for Social Security. Your plan for monthly income and budget based on this program is disrupted. Perhaps it even allows you to retire completely after a long and productive life of work. You walk up to the office to apply, but you are greeted with a dark and empty building. Or perhaps you called to ensure your payments will soon be processed, and all you get is a dial tone. Nobody is there to answer. This is unthinkable. Even more egregious, 290,000 disabled workers would wait months for their claims to be processed, threatening already vulnerable people with further insecurity. Or imagine you want to appeal your funding amount or there's an error in your payment. What do you do? Something my office prides itself on is helping these appeals get heard and settled to give Social Security recipients their due payment and peace of mind. Under this irresponsible Republican spending bill, which will cut half a billion dollars to Social Security, some 70,000 appeals cases would cry out but nobody would be there to listen, nor would the Social Security Administration be able to clean up cases of fraud, abuse, and improper payment. This cut could actually cost the government more than it saves. It is no secret that the majority in this body seeks to privatize Social Security. Their top budget-maker has already proven that in his plan. This provision in the irresponsible public spending bill is simply another brick laid along the path to Social Security's destruction. President Bush proposed privatizing this program in 2005, and Americans said ``no.'' We were right to say `` no,'' as Social Security would have trillions in the stock market during the meltdown of the Bush recession lost. Instead, Social Security did not lose a single penny. That bears repeating. In the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, Social Security did not lose a single penny. We must protect Social Security from being raided for short-term political gains. Without it, almost half of all our seniors would be living in poverty. It makes up 76 percent of the total income for middle- and low-income seniors. But it is not just the seniors who depend on Social Security. Families who have lost loved ones are able to survive on their loved one's benefits, including about 6.5 million children. Raiding Social Security would hurt them, too. In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt uttered a quote that is as true today as it was 76 years ago. He said, ``We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program.'' With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Mr. TONKO. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I ask that this point of order be waived. And on behalf of seniors in my district and seniors across this country who rely on Social Security, I ask that the gentleman withdraw his point of order. We cannot blindly cut Social Security in the name of reducing the deficit without regard to drastic consequences.

Mr. TONKO. These cuts pose real threats and force to Social Security Administration and senior benefits.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, I rise to speak against the point of order. My amendment eliminates the extreme and irresponsible budget cuts to Social Security. These cuts will create massive gaps in Social Security's operating budget, leading to even larger costs in the future. My amendment averts this shortsighted downfall, creating a net budget savings that addresses the gentleman's point of order.

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment because I am seriously concerned about the effect the irresponsible Republican spending plan will have on our Nation's seniors. This amendment would stop the cut of $125 million to the Social Security Administration's operating budget. Slashing funding for the Social Security Administration is slashing money out of Social Security, plain and simple. Cuts to Social Security will directly affect our seniors, there is no way around it; and my amendment seeks to avert this impending crisis. The funding in this irresponsible Republican spending plan is over half a billion dollars less than what Social Security spent in 2010 to process payments to seniors and carry out basic operations. But the cost of running Social Security in 2010 will not suffice for 2011. Our Nation's baby boomers are retiring each month, growing the number of seniors in the system and the number of claims Social Security must process each month. This continuing resolution leaves Social Security more than $1 billion short of what they actually need to help keep checks going out on time to seniors. This irresponsible Republican spending bill creates an enormous funding shortfall that Social Security will not have to survive on for the remainder of the year. Both Social Security and the Office of Management and Budget have confirmed that these massive cuts would force Social Security to lay off nearly 3,500 employees, furlough other employees, and close their offices in States across the country for up to 4 weeks. What does this mean for seniors on Social Security? It means that 400,000 seniors would not have their applications processed this year. It means that 290,000 people would not have their disability applications processed, adding months of wait time for newly sick and disabled workers with no other source of income. It means that 70,000 fewer people will have their appeals heard, burdening seniors and the disabled with wait times of over a year before their cases can move forward and allow them to receive their benefits earned. And it means that there will be 32,000 fewer investigations to root out improper payments, fraud and abuse. Each month Social Security processes nearly 500,000, half a million, yes, half a million, new applications from seniors and the disabled. Employee layoffs and office closures lasting a month would delay benefits to all those applicants, disrupting seniors' and widows' checks and delaying payments for those trying to live on a fixed income. Furthermore, closing Social Security offices would create a backlog of applicants, so even when offices reopened they would be dealing with an ongoing backlog of applications affecting our seniors long into the future. Who knows when they would ever catch up on the claims. Never in the history of Social Security has there been a backlog of retirement and survivors' benefit applications. This bill is certainly precedent setting. Without a doubt, it would create the first Social Security backlog in our Nation's history. This bill would force the Social Security system to shut its doors for up to a month, something that will affect every person receiving Social Security payments. People will get busy signals or unanswered rings when they call their local offices for help. Seniors will wait weeks for appointments and wait even longer to access their hard-earned benefits. Make no mistake about it, the seniors we represent--the entire body here represents--will feel the impact of these cuts. The majority is lauding the fact that this bill represents the largest spending cut in the history of our country. If they want to cut funding to satisfy that base, fine. But I will not stand for cutting Social Security. I will not support budget cuts balanced on the backs of our Nation's seniors and middle class that bail out the rich and comfortable. I urge defeat of this bill and the adoption of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Republican spending bill currently before this House. This bill fails to create jobs, deeply hurts our families and seniors, and responds with extremes at a time when our fragile economy can least afford it. I am committed to a budget that lives within our means while investing in the future and cutting our deficit. However, this irresponsible Republican spending bill hampers job creation and jeopardizes investments in American innovation, American education, and American infrastructure. That is why President Obama vowed today to veto the irresponsible Republican spending bill because it undermines critical priorities for national security and curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation. We must do more to focus on jobs, grow the economy, and protect our middle class, certainly, while responsibly tackling our Nation's debt and deficit. That is why I've offered 8 amendments to this bill which will protect seniors, protect energy innovation, strengthen our children's education, and most importantly, will protect and grow jobs as the fragile economy slowly recovers. We simply cannot afford to pull the rug out from underneath progress, not now, not when we are finally rebounding from the Bush recession, not with the extreme spending bill this represents. I refuse to take America back to the failed policies that sunk our economy. My first two amendments would restore funding from the cuts to the Social Security Administration to prevent its shutdown. The cuts that the irresponsible Republican spending bill propose in this section alone would raid $625 million from the Social Security Administration. This would affect the 53 million Americans who are collecting Social Security by furloughing every employee and closing the doors for a month or more. An estimated 400,000 people, mostly seniors, would not have their claims processed this year, creating a huge backlog and threatening the timely payment of benefits. My amendments would restore this funding because I do not believe we should use our Nation's seniors that have worked hard and played by the rules their whole lives to somehow painfully balance our budget. This is simply extreme and, again, painfully irresponsible. The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, is also cut in this irresponsible Republican spending plan by some nearly $400 million. Those are cuts that are made on the backs of the low-income residents, seniors, the disabled, and those with children like those I represent in the now cold and snowy Capital region of New York, who struggle to pay to keep the thermostat set at a livable level. LIHEAP keeps those receiving help from having to make the heartbreaking decision about whether to pay to keep the heat on or to pay for food and prescription drugs. To pull the rug out from underneath our Nation's most vulnerable is both simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. My fourth amendment would maintain funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. It is amendment number 4 and is set up for a recorded vote today. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. The State Energy Program yields $7.22 in annual energy savings for every $1 invested in it while renovating our 13,000 buildings per year. The Weatherization Assistance Program helps low-income and elderly save over $437 on their annual utility bill, and decreases oil consumption by the equivalent of 24.1 million barrels annually. To cut these jobs-producing, energy savings programs that clearly work is both simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. I have also offered two amendments that would protect the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act from being jeopardized under the irresponsible Republican spending plan. The Clean Air Act protects public health and safety and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives since 1970 by reducing air pollution by 60 percent, while the economy has grown by 200 percent. The Clean Water Act protects drinking water for 117 million Americans and safeguards 20 million acres of wetlands and wildlife habitats from big polluters. Seeking to inappropriately legislate against these programs in a spending bill, the continuing resolution would threaten the air our children breathe and the water we drink. This is simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. My seventh amendment removes unobligated funding from Fossil Energy Research and Development and transfers these funds to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This would prioritize our investments from dirty oil and dirty fossil fuel sources of the past to the energy of today and tomorrow, clean energy that would create jobs and make us competitive in a global market. Choosing to go sit out the clean energy race of today for the outdated energy sources of yesterday is simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. My eighth amendment would restore funding for education and special ed to ensure our children and the future of our country have the resources they desperately need to compete in a global marketplace for generations to come. It prevents thousands of teacher layoffs. The irresponsible Republican spending bill cuts over $1.25 billion in education funding that goes directly to States at a time when we can least afford it. Balancing the budget on the backs of our children and their education is simply extreme and painfully irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the current irresponsible Republican spending bill before the House. It threatens to undermine our recovery economy and job growth.