Paul Tonko

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I offer this motion to speak out against the egregious cuts that are being addressed here to public education contained in this irresponsible Republican spending bill. This spending bill cuts over $1.25 billion in education funding that goes directly to States and school districts to support educating disadvantaged students and special education students. Now is not the time to choke off funding to school districts when stimulus money is eroding and when States are cutting their own budgets. I fear we are leaving schools and our Nation's most vulnerable students behind. These sections of the irresponsible Republican spending plan represent a nearly 5 percent cut in aid to school districts. For title I funding that supports school budgets and teacher jobs in low-income school districts, this means a $693.5 million cut. For Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the IDEA Act, special education funding that supports school districts educating children with special needs and disabilities, this means a $557.7 million cut. Title I funding has helped school districts with high poverty levels meet State education standards and ensure equal access to quality education for all of their students. More than 50,000 public schools around this Nation depend on these Federal dollars to maintain their educational services. This cut to title I funding alone would affect 2,400 schools that serve nearly 1 million disadvantaged students. These schools would lose funding for teachers, for tutors, and for after-school programs. It would mean that nearly 10,000 teachers and aides could lose their jobs. Children could see larger class sizes. And, yes, access to quality education would again be threatened. Not only does this bill cut funding for education for low-income children, but it institutes painful cuts to special education programs funded with the IDEA dollars. For 35 years, IDEA has supported special education, guaranteeing students with disabilities the right to a free, appropriate public education. Millions of students with disabilities have been able to go to public schools because of the IDEA funding school districts receive, allowing them to provide an individualized education for children with those special needs. This bill cuts over one-half billion dollars out of special education funding to school districts. Cuts of this proportion could force States and school districts to lay off almost 7,000 special education teachers and aides and other staff serving children with disabilities. Just last week, I met with members of the New York State School Board Association who advocated for full funding for title I and especially for IDEA. They stressed the fact that special education funding has never been fully funded to the amount that was originally promised to our schools. These cuts are giant steps backwards after several years of quality investments in title I and IDEA funding. Furthermore, these cuts would come at a time when States across this country are also slashing education funding. These cuts come at a time when supplemental stimulus aid is drying up. Cuts mean that school districts in local communities will have to make up the difference, potentially with teacher layoffs, larger class sizes, reduced programs, and higher--higher--property taxes. This is not responsible policymaking, especially while our economy is still in recovery. The majority in this House 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 education funding. I will not support budget cuts balanced on the backs of our Nation's students, our youngest citizens, and, indeed, our future. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO. Madam Chair, while I support the Flake amendment, I oppose the underlying continuing resolution. The Republicans are here today offering another piece of their ``no jobs'' agenda, and they are in disarray and are hastily pushing an irresponsible and dangerous spending bill that threatens jobs, undercuts American innovation, and jeopardizes investments in rebuilding America. Creating jobs, protecting the middle class, and reducing the deficit are, indeed, my top priorities. We should be working together to accomplish these very valid goals. However, Republicans have controlled this House for 41 days, nearly 2 months, and brought up zero bills to create jobs. The mindless cuts that are on this floor today mean 1 million jobs cut, 1 million jobs cut from our economy--no jobs for nurses, no jobs for teachers, no jobs for police, no jobs for firefighters, no jobs for manufacturing, no jobs for small businesses. You cut the deficit by putting America back to work, not by cutting Social Security. Republicans aim to cut Social Security and Medicare. When Republicans say they are cutting costs, they mean cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid until they don't exist. Ask my seniors in the 21st Congressional District of New York, and they'll tell you to leave alone the Social Security system that has served them well. Republicans want to make you pay, make you pay for Big Oil's billion- dollar subsidies, make you pay for higher drug prices, make you pay taxes to start a small business, make you pay for CEO salaries, let Main Street take a hit while Wall Street gets a bonus. The American people want Republican leaders to look out for constituents first, not their corporate friends. This careless resolution cuts jobs and damages our economy. Just 6 weeks after taking charge of the House, Republicans are not just ignoring jobs; they are cutting them, and they admit it. This morning, our Speaker, Speaker Boehner, had a response to our concern that this bill destroys--destroys--American jobs. And he said, ``So be it.'' Well, I guess that he meant, so be it if there are 1,300 fewer cops on the beat, because this bill terminates the COPS hiring program. So be it if there are 2,400 fewer firefighters on the job protecting their communities, because this bill eliminates funding for SAFER grants. So be it if there are 20,000 fewer researchers at the National Science Foundation. So be it if there are 25,000 lost construction jobs and 76 construction projects are canceled in 40 States. So be it if there are 200,000 children kicked out of Head Start programs, and so be it if thousands of teachers will lose their jobs. Mr. Speaker, ``so be it'' isn't a good enough answer for the hardworking middle class of our country. I agree with the President that we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We will continue to measure every effort by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit. I have submitted eight amendments to this irresponsible Republican spending bill to protect and grow jobs, out-innovate other countries in clean energy, protect our seniors, and ensure quality education for our children. I support efforts to balance the budget. However, I will not support a spending bill that threatens our economic recovery, that cuts 1 million jobs just after we have created 1.2 million private sector jobs since last March, and is achieved on the backs of senior citizens, children, and the working middle class. Republicans have gone too far, sacrificing Americans' health, safety, and future in order to protect their special interests while offering no real plan to create jobs. Madam Chair, the American people are united, and they are saying one thing: Show us the jobs. I urge defeat of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TONKO

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

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to section 1434 of the Republican spending bill. The section includes language that bans funds allocated to energy efficiency and renewable energy from being used for the weatherization assistance program or the State Energy Program. This rider has nothing to do with reducing funds; it is a policy rider. My amount would simply strike that language from this bill. This amendment does not add a single dollar to the deficit, the continuing resolution, or energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. It preserves the Republicans' cuts, though misguided, to energy efficiency and renewable energy. It merely states that weatherization and state energy programs remain eligible for funds. There are many cuts in this bill that we cannot fix for procedural reasons. And there are many more that Republicans will oppose for political reasons, but this is something we can save. This amendment has strong bipartisan appeal. It is about lowering utility bills for people on the brink. It is about preserving construction, inspection, and renovation jobs. It is about States rights. It has been a harsh and unrelenting winter in many parts of America. We should not be leaving our friends and our neighbors out in the cold. The State Energy Program is a 30-year old program that provides resources to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and it works. I know this because I used to run this program for New York State as the President and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. For every $1 in funding it yields $7.22 in annual energy savings. Each $1 in State Energy Program Federal funds is leveraged by $10.71 of state and private funds. States receiving this funding are eligible to do energy audits on over 15,000 buildings per year, including residential, commercial, and industrial properties. They are also able to renovate over 13,000 buildings per year to be more energy efficient. Think of it. Energy efficiency as our fuel of choice. The other program my amendment addresses is the Weatherization Assistance Program. Some 38.6 million low-income, elderly, and disabled households are eligible for renovations to become more energy efficient and to lower their electric bills. Per household, this program creates a $437 savings or more in annual utility bills, or about 35 percent off of a typical utility bill. In 2010 alone, weatherized homes nationally would have saved some $2.1 billion. The weatherization program decreases national energy consumption by the equivalent of 24.1 million barrels of oil annually. For every $1 invested, weatherization returns $2.51 to the household and our society. 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 State Energy Program and Weatherization Assistance Program rider does not reduce the deficit by 1 cent. It is not about funding. It is about restricting programs that work and playing politics as usual. We should be focused on creating jobs, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and innovating for our future. My amendment restores our ability to do all three without adding a single cent to this bill. I ask for your support of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Northeast Region United Way 211. United Way 211 is a free, confidential number to call for anyone who needs help and answers in the capital region, from securing adequate care for a child to helping an aging parent to finding substance abuse assistance. Mr. Speaker, 2010 was a busy year for United Way 211 northeast region, with over 9,100 calls, and they are projecting over 1,000 calls a month for 2011. Why do people call this number? The top reasons deal with some of the most basic needs a person has: keeping a roof over one's head, putting food on the table, and trying to find a place to go to work. Take Mary in my district, for example. Mary made $48,000 in the first 6 months of 2009 but then got laid off with the downturn in the economy. As an unemployed individual who had gone through all of her savings since losing her job through no fault of her own, she called to receive help in filing her taxes. Or take George--again, a resident of the 21st Congressional District--a senior who suffers from seizures who called because he couldn't afford Medicaid deductibles for his seizure medication. He was in danger of running out of medication the following week. United Way 211 was able to assist George with his finances and get him back on track to managing his own health. Mr. Speaker, these are the benefits of the United Way 211 Northeast Region.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. I rise today on behalf of the regular, everyday American families and those who work for a living. Just yesterday, my friends on the other side of the aisle released their job-killing spending policies. Make no mistake about it, these policies will deeply hurt the middle class and will not help grow jobs. Let's look at these statistics: 83 percent of all United States stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the American public; the bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 3 percent of our Nation's wealth. I encourage my Republican colleagues in this House to stop in their efforts to take money away from those who use it to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer, to stop in their efforts to take away money from those who keep our air safe and our water clean, and to stop in their efforts to take investments away from technology and jobs of the future. Mr. Speaker, the middle class has been ignored for far too long. As the backbone of our country, it is time they get their fair share. I stand for empowering our middle class, not reducing jobs in America.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again that my top priority this session of Congress is to focus on job creation and growing our economy. I think that many, if not all, of my Democratic colleagues share that same goal. However, let me share a few numbers with you here this morning on this new session of Congress. These numbers suggest that perhaps not every Member in this body shares that goal. Five, the number of weeks that this House has been in session under the new leadership. Twelve, the number of bills the House has voted on. Zero, the number of House votes on bills that have been through their respective committees. Zero, the number of House votes on bills intended to create jobs and address what should be our very top priority. The most important contest we face today is not between Democrats and Republicans; rather, it's America's contest with competitors across the globe for the jobs and industries of our time. And economic growth is crucial for us to win this global race, not only for the future of our workforce but also as a way to balance our budget and drive down the deficit. During his State of the Union address, I was happy to hear President Obama reiterate that we share the same top priority--jobs, jobs, and jobs. In fact, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, is sitting before the Budget Committee today. I plan to discuss the economic growth rate and the GDP with the Chairman later this morning. In June 2010, Chairman Bernanke suggested that the GDP would rise by about 3 percent over the course of the year last year and would likely increase at a slightly higher pace in 2011. In fact, the fourth quarter of 2010 showed a rate of growth at 3.2 percent. Compare that nearly double-digit turnaround to the end of the Bush administration where we saw a 6 percent downturn in GDP. In addition to that slow but steady growth, we've seen the private sector add 1.2 million jobs, another stark turnaround from the final month of the Bush administration, where we lost more than 8 million jobs. Though we all acknowledge that job numbers need to grow more, I've been surprised at the enthusiasm for these GDP and private sector growth numbers coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They've been quite enthusiastic, claiming that the growth we've seen in the past few months is, in large part, from their policies. And yet we return to the numbers I mentioned previously--zero, the number of House votes on bills intended to create jobs since the start of this new session of Congress--and now we look to finish the budget for this year and await the budget proposal from President Obama for next year. We heard a lot in the campaign last year about the other side's job plan to cut and grow. In fact, we've seen that plan come to fruition through the Republican Study Committee. They have proposed $2.5 trillion in discretionary spending cuts over the next 10 years. This plan would put more than 1 million jobs at risk, halt our economic growth, and hurt middle class families. Let me repeat that. This plan would put at risk more than 1 million jobs. Some of the examples of job losses include small businesses, where some 161,000 jobs would be lost due to $4 billion less in guaranteed loans. Law enforcement officials would lose their jobs where 12,900 jobs would be cut. Approximately 4,000 positions for FBI agents, 800 ATF agents, 1,500 DEA agents, and some 900 U.S. marshals would be lost, as would 5,700 correctional officers in our Federal prisons. And 27,500 weatherization jobs would be cut. Just imagine, as one of the largest and strongest winter storms of the season just swept across the country, with some areas receiving record snowfall accumulations, temperatures that dropped dozens of degrees below zero, and deadly storms that knocked out power and left people in the cold. We are telling the weakest and neediest amongst us that they simply are not worth our investments. Americans' top priorities are job creation and deficit reduction, and they demand that we work together to meet these goals. We are committed to deficit reduction, but we are not going to do it in an irresponsible way that will threaten jobs, economic growth, and the security of our middle class. The budget cannot be slashed at the expense of jobs and investments in transportation, clean energy, innovation, and rebuilding--rebuilding America, not jeopardizing our economic recovery. I agree with President Obama that we must out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world, but we cannot risk our economic future by rolling back investments that will help our private sector grow and put people back to work.

Mr. TONKO

Mr. TONKO. Right. And produced great benefits for every dollar invested. You, Representative Connolly, and I serve on SEEC, which is a wonderful group of legislators, like-minded in producing a green agenda that reaches to a sustainable energy and environmental outcome. That SEEC coalition is what is driving that agenda here in the House. One of our cochairs is with us this evening, the gentleman from Washington State's First District, Jay Inslee. Representative Jay Inslee is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and is ranker on a subcommittee, I believe, that will have a very important hearing. Representative Inslee, thank you for joining us this evening to talk about this important topic.

Mr. TONKO. Representative Inslee, you talk about the jobs effect. Obviously, there are those who would suggest that this kills jobs when, in fact, we have data from 2007 that shows the air pollution control equipment industry was generating some $18.3 billion with $3 billion of that in terms of exporting that is done. So this spurs innovation. It puts into working order the science and tech community that creates sustainable-type jobs that really make an impact on our quality of life and on our public health standards. I think those facts are missing here when those forces of lobbyists, deep pocket sorts, and oil voices join with our partners on the other side of the aisle to kill this legislation.

Mr. TONKO. You know, I think, too, it taps into the pioneer spirit of America--the ingenuity, the creative genius that has always guided us, that is nurtured simply by our open system of government and capitalist style of opportunity. We have been able to go forward with so many advances. In this case, as we address health-threatening, life- threatening situations because of toxic poisoning, it produces jobs that are of a very sustainable quality and that are really tapping into the cerebral power of this country. I don't know why anyone would want to disrupt that progress as there is no higher priority than jobs, jobs, jobs in our society today. At the same time, if we can create stronger public health standards-- as you said, address women of senior age varieties and children of all types and working middle-aged couples around this country--everyone in every age demographic will be protected and helped by the Clean Air Act. There is 40 years of documented success that ought to guide us here and tell us this is a move in the wrong direction. We are so happy that so many people are offering their thoughts here this evening in this Special Order, in this 1-hour's worth of info exchange. We are joined by a great Representative from New Jersey, who is, again, a very thoughtful scientist of types--a physicist, I believe--from New Jersey's 12th Congressional District, Representative Rush Holt. Thank you so much, Representative Holt, for joining us this evening.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. And you know, I think that our goal, gentlemen, should be to strengthen the public health standards. When we think of the reduced amount of impacts on children, for instance, those 18 million cases that were prevented of respiratory diseases for children, those are important steps. That ought to drive us. But you know, Representative Holt talked about the cost of the program and the associated benefits. Well, right now the average has been for every dollar of investment there is a $13 benefit. That's a tremendous, powerful outcome. Why would we not want to continue that sort of benefit that befalls the American public and produces jobs at the same time? This whole session of Congress that preceded this 112th and now this Congress, this session of Congress to date is all about jobs, and why would we walk away from the jobs potential and the public health improvements for the sake of politics? And by the way, those benefits are projected by the year 2020 to rise to $20 trillion, which is a 30:1 ratio. For every dollar invested, $30 of benefits will be produced. This is an awesome track record, and one that really, again, speaks to the well-being, the general health of the American public and produces jobs. By the way, the American manufacturing teams that work on air pollution reduction technology are the kingpins in that global market. They are producing and exporting. Now, everywhere we go we're looking for American industry to be bolstered, for manufacturing to come back. We in this House have adopted the mantra, Make it in America, Make it in America again. Here we are, we're achieving and exporting, exporting, which is the goal here, so that we can bulk up the American economy, and getting good results from it.

Mr. TONKO. There's a point that comes to mind, Representative Holt, when you talk about building it here and developing the technology and having that think-tank quality in this country. That also has to be nurtured by the next generation of workers. We have to pull from the students in the classroom today their experience or their awareness of science, technology, engineering, and math. We must enable them to explore those areas as a career path. What sort of message are we offering out there? What is the message that resonates from this sort of approach? If I'm a youngster in a classroom, I'm thinking science and technology has no value in our society. We're able to clean up, but we don't want to clean up. We're able to produce jobs through air pollution reduction technology that requires some sort of research and development concept--we don't care about that. We're sending a message to young people that these careers don't matter, and oh, by the way, your health doesn't matter because all of those young people, say from asthma or say from some sort of respiratory ailment, just don't matter. That is a terrible statement to offer our young people, I would think. And Representative Inslee, you have something to say?

Mr. TONKO. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Quigley, for presenting your perspective on this important discussion. I think it's important to note when we talk about the statistics, when we talk about an attack on public health standards, which this is, it's done to enhance the opportunities--for lobbyists, for special interests, for deep pockets of the oil industry, where they want to avoid that sense of accountability and where they want to build their profit column at the expense of the health outcomes that we have generated to the good over the last 40 years. In fact, in 2010 alone, the stat is that some 160,000 lives plus were saved by this legislation, by this law that was produced 40 years ago. And when it comes to children, some 18 million cases over the last 20 years of children's bronchial or respiratory illnesses were prevented. So right there the proof is in the pudding. This is an attack on our public health, and I think it's important to state it for the record so that when these forces of negativity come into play, they're checked for their wanting to roll us backward. I thank you for joining us this evening, Representative Quigley.

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Inslee. You know, the efforts made here tonight were to inform people as to the impact that could be felt if we rolled back the progress of the Clean Air Act, one that has had this 40-year record of achievement, one that has given a big boost to innovation in our economy. Our President, this President, President Obama, has indicated that this is the sort of sustainable restructuring of our economy that can drive us forward. If we invest in the intellect of this great American society, if we encourage education and higher education to be pronounced in the lives of individuals, if we can pull from them their interests in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, we can then have this hopeful opportunity of job creation that comes simply through ideas, ideas that are produced perhaps in that education experience that we can provide for our young people and by public policy that drives initiatives, that drives a series of goals to in this case clean the air quality that has enabled us to go forward with the soundness in the manufacturing sector that has retrofitted, has modernized, has adjusted, retooled that industry, those industries in the manufacturing realm to respond in a way that is much more sensitive to public health standards. This is the sort of progress that we can achieve in this country simply by moving forward with soundness of policy. And so, I thank all of our colleagues this evening who have joined us in the efforts to speak to the soundness of clean air, what it means not only in public health standards but certainly in the efforts to create jobs and to sustain the economy in a way that will continue to strive to build on the progress that we have achieved over these last four decades, and continue to explore new eras of job creation that will provide the soundness in our economy that will be the strength of this country in many, many decades and generations to come.

Mr. TONKO. Well, I can't help but think too of the Citizens United case, where special interests now are able to open the corporate checkbook and just write sizable checks. The sky is the limit, according to the Supreme Court decision. And that can bring about special interest flavor into campaigns that are waged and into candidates that are produced into the House. And when we look at special interests like that, we then begin to see what the real agenda is, and it's counterproductive. It is kicking back progress that has been achieved for 40 years, celebrations of life that were allowed to breathe freely because of this legislation. And the introduction of innovation and technology. So these deep-rooted power plays are perhaps going to be more prevalent as we go forward in time, and I think that it's setting a dangerous precedent. I think that what we have here is an opportunity to say ``yes'' to sound public health standards, ``yes'' to job creation, ``yes'' to innovation. I know that from the work that's being done--even in the auto industry, GE is putting together an advanced battery manufacturing facility that will be available for heavy fleets. We have those who are working on all sorts of alternative fuels. We are looking at renewables to cut the kind of pollution that has been allowed to continue because of our gluttonous dependency on oil imported from unfriendly nations to the U.S. And 60 percent of that demand is met simply by those oil imports. So there is an awful lot of progressive perspective that is associated with what the Clean Air Act has achieved. We have to go forward with this one.

Mr. TONKO. Absolutely.

Mr. TONKO. Built on 40 years of success then, we want to defend people of all ages from the most young to the most senior in our society. They have experienced and lived the benefits of soundness of policy that came via the Clean Air Act, a bipartisan effort that was initiated by a Republican President. And so it defies logic to move forward with a plan that will take us backward. So we have to thwart that effort and call it for what it is, check it at the door and say, Look, it is a life-threatening, health-threatening, toxic-poisoning situation that would reduce jobs, denounce innovation in our society, in our economy, and really take us backward. I think this House ought to be about moving us forward, creating jobs, enhancing the public health standards and embracing the quality of innovation in our society that really builds the magic in our economy, that digs deep into the pioneer spirit that is uniquely American. And we can make it happen simply by saying ``no'' to those agents that want to roll back progress and defeat us with their dirty air act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back and thank you for the opportunity for all of us to express our concerns about those who are advancing a dirty air act.

Mr. TONKO. We are joined by Representative Gerry Connolly from the 11th District in Virginia. It is always good to hear from you, also, Gerry. It is important, I think, that everyone share their perspective here this evening of what damage can be calculated here after 40 years of progress and where there is an attack on our health care standards and on job creation. Because, as we all know, innovation to respond to the efforts of this law, the intent purpose, produces jobs and produces a technical response that is unique and provides for America to dig deep into solutions.

Mr. TONKO. Just following on the heels of----

Mr. TONKO. Just following on the heels of the President saying right from the podium, right in the State of the Union, it's time to celebrate the science bowl as much as we celebrate the Super Bowl. Here he is trying to draw the innovation economy into the classroom to give students a sense of vision, partake in a creative venture out there that will make the world better, and now we're rolling back technology. What a terrible message to leave our young people. Representative Inslee.