John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk about what's on the minds of the constituents in my district, and that's jobs. They're worried about the economy, they're worried about jobs, and they want to find an opportunity to get a job. Unfortunately, it's actually 11 weeks since the Republicans took control of this House, and there's not been one job bill. The big bill that passed here 4 weeks ago was the continuing resolution for the year, and that piece of legislation actually disposed of 700,000 jobs. It was all couched in the terms of how we're going to solve the deficit, but the reality is you're not going to solve the deficit by making small cuts through multiple programs, and that's what it did. What it actually would have accomplished is to destroy 700,000 jobs here in America. What we need to do is to take the long view. We need to look at the overarching problem, and we do have a deficit problem. Most of it, frankly, was created during the George W. Bush administration. If you look back to the year 2000 when the Clinton administration ended, there would have been, if the same policies had continued, a $5 billion surplus. We would have wiped out the American debt. That didn't happen. Policies changed, two wars, tax reductions, and an incredible deficit, and the collapse of the American and the worldwide economy. So where are we today? We're left with a problem. We're going to talk about that today. I've asked my friend from New York (Mr. Tonko) to join us and my good friend from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, to join us. Mr. Tonko, if you would start us.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, your passion and knowledge on this is extraordinary and so well placed. If we look at what has happened here on the floor in the last 11 weeks, it has only been about destroying jobs immediately. The continuing resolution that was passed by the Republicans 4 weeks ago actually would destroy, if it became law--fortunately, it hasn't--would destroy 700,000 jobs. And it's not just those immediate jobs that are lost. As you so correctly point out, the key investments in tomorrow's economy were similarly destroyed. The research agenda for the energy economy was wiped out. The program called ARPA-E, Advanced Research in Energy policy, the program, was wiped out. Those are where the clean energy jobs, those are where the conservation, where the new lights, the new energy systems that we need to deal with the reality of our dependence on foreign oil and the climate change issue, just wiped them out. Similarly, in the National Institutes of Health, where you are talking about cancer research, research in diabetes, the things that hold back the American economy, because people do get sick. And when they are sick, they are not able to work. So this whole array of research, which is one of the fundamental ingredients of future economic growth, was wiped out by the Republican agenda. Just today, if I might just add this piece to it, I was looking at the details of the continuing resolution which passed this House some 50 minutes ago. On agricultural research, we know that we have a food crisis coming up. There are going to be 7 billion people in this world. We have a food crisis that is imminent; and in fact, much of the disruption that is going on in the Middle East is in part due to the price of food. There are food shortages. Agricultural research to the tune of over $220 million to $230 million wiped out. Where are we going to get the food for future generations? They like to talk about that. One final point before I turn it back to you is all of this discussion about the deficit. We have to deal with the deficit. But you can't deal with the deficit by cutting off the ability of the American economy to grow and to perform in the years ahead. So it is the research, it is the Pell Grants for education. All of those things are critical for tomorrow's economic growth. And you cannot deal with the deficit in 1 year. This is a multiyear program. Therefore, we need to be very careful where we are spending our money so that we create the jobs for tomorrow and we create the opportunity for America to make it, to make things in America once again. Mr. Tonko?

Mr. GARAMENDI. You're kind, but Mr. Tonko's been there this entire time. Let me turn back to Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Yes, we ought to look to the children. Last Sunday on ``60 Minutes'' was a report about our children in America today. Twenty-five percent of our children in America today are hungry, and many of them are homeless because their parents have lost their homes. Forty-two families. Yes, this program hasn't yet kicked into its full potential. Forty-two families are in their homes today, and those children are not out on the street homeless. Listen to America. Listen to the 25 percent of children in America today that are hungry, and a large percentage of them are homeless. Listen to their cry. Listen to them. Yes, we have an obligation as good citizens of this Nation to see to it that our neighborhoods, even if they are the high-end neighborhoods in Alabama, that those problems are addressed. Ten months ago, the new majority took this floor and they said, Listen, listen to Americans that want jobs. Not one job bill has passed this House. The only bill that's passed this House that dealt with jobs was H.R. 1, the continuing resolution, that destroyed 700,000 jobs and will put more of those children homeless, will destroy more families. Yes, we ought to be listening to the generations ahead of us. But if we do not listen to today's problems, those problems in the future will only be worse. And $8 billion, yes, that's a lot of money. But it happens to be 8 percent of what we spend every year in the Afghan war. Get our priorities straight here on this floor. You bet I'm worried about the children of today. But 25 percent of Americans' children are hungry, and a large percentage of them are homeless because their parents have been unable to meet the mortgage commitments. This program is one of four that is going to be terminated by the Republican majority. So what is it that you are offering those children? The children of today, what is it that you are offering them? The opportunity to be homeless. That's what you're offering. Come to this floor and talk to me about tomorrow's generation. Yes, do that. And that's my concern also. But I'm concerned about those that are homeless and hungry today. So don't eliminate this program. Make it work. Don't eliminate the other three programs that are an effort to try to keep people in their homes so that they don't go homeless. Madam Chair, I know my colleagues on the Republican side care about the children of America, today's children. Why they would put four bills forward this week and next week that eliminate the opportunity for those parents to stay in their home I do not understand. We need compassion. We need to be aware of the deficit. We need to make choices. If our choice is to force more families to be homeless, that's the wrong choice. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, 10 weeks ago on this floor there was great celebration by our colleagues in the Republican Party as they took control of this House, and there were many sermons given to all of us by the Members in the majority party about the need to listen to Americans. I suggest we do that at this moment as we consider this bill. Madam Chair, 10,780,236 American families are crying out for help. We should be listening to them. I know the gentlewoman from Illinois has a big heart, and she knows that 430,000 of the homeowners in Illinois are crying out for relief. And I'm certain, Madam Chairman, that the author of this bill, the gentleman from Alabama, is well aware that in his State 35,000 homeowners are crying out for relief. And I'm certain that all of the Members of the Republican Party are listening to the 10,780,236 families in America that are crying out for relief. I can assure you the Democrats are listening. My amendment, Madam Chair, is one that goes to one of the three reasons why they are crying out for relief. There was no regulation imposed during the years 2001 to 2009. That was one problem. We attempted to address that with the Dodd-Frank law that's now in place. The second reason was irresponsibility; and certainly some of those homeowners who are crying out for relief were irresponsible, and certainly some of those who lost their homes already that are crying out for relief were irresponsible. But the big irresponsibility were the bankers in this Nation. They took advantage of millions upon millions of homeowners and engaged in irresponsible activity. The third item is where my amendment goes, and that is to Wall Street greed. We know, from the commission that was assigned the responsibility of looking at why the great crash occurred, we know from that report that greed was the underlying motivation for Wall Street. My amendment goes to that greed. In the future, not in the past--and some of my colleagues have spoken to the need for criminal action, which is also part of that report done by the commission--this goes to the future. This amendment goes to the future and says for those in Wall Street, the high and the mighty that get the huge bonuses, most of whom were just in the newspaper this week, that their bonuses should be in the stock of the company in which they are operating and that those bonuses be held in an escrow account for a period of time so that either the good or the bad effect of their action would be known and so that they could not take immediate benefit from their irresponsible actions. This amendment would put a damper on Wall Street greed. This amendment is necessary to put a damper on Wall Street greed, and it goes directly to one of the reasons why this bill is before us. This bill is before us, I think in an inappropriate way, to deal with the housing crisis. The housing crisis was caused in part by Wall Street greed. We ought to be addressing that. That's what this amendment does, by withholding from immediate benefit those members of Wall Street who have created the crisis in the past and who may very well be in the process of creating tomorrow's crisis. I ask for the support of this amendment. Point of Order

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think that it's necessary when we take up a bill that would eliminate a law that is intended to help 10,780,326 homeowners that we look to the underlying reason why the problem exists. This amendment does that. We ought not be using artificial rules that prevent us from the underlying problem, allowing those rules to stop us from taking up the real problem. I oppose the proposal to rule this out of order.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. This is a great country, and we're going to have a great future. We're in tough times right now, and we've been in tough times in the past. But if we have wise, thoughtful policies, we'll pull this country together, and we will deal with the deficit. We just can't do it in ways that are not wise and that do not give us the investments for the future. I think our time has expired. Thank you so very much for joining us. Thank you for your years of service to this Nation as a Member of Congress and as a war hero. We thank you.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would love to yield to you anytime.

Mr. GARAMENDI. If the gentleman would yield, first, thank you so very much for joining us and for bringing a perspective of four decades of extraordinary work here on the floor and in the committees, for keeping us on track, and for keeping that vision that America is a great place. Americans are strong and resilient and really want to improve their positions and, even more so, want to improve their children's positions. Therefore, the key investments that we must make for today and on into the future are pretty straightforward. We need to have the best education in the world. We've got a long way to go. We're not going to get there by eliminating Head Start, by eliminating the Pell Grants, by forcing kids out of school, by shutting down classes or by taking classes from 20 to 35 kids. That's what my daughter faces. She's a second-grade teacher. She now has 33 kids in her class. She'll probably have 35 in a couple of months. She had 20 last year. We can't improve the education system. Research. That's tomorrow. Research is tomorrow. If we don't do it today, we will lose this. Already I'm getting companies coming to me, saying we have to improve the research. We have to have that research tax credit because what's happening is the manufacturing isn't in America--it's overseas--and now the research is following the manufacturing. We've got to turn that around. Yet the continuing resolution cuts research: energy research, research in manufacturing, research in health care. So where is tomorrow? Tomorrow is going to be overseas unless we return it to America with smart investments in the future: infrastructure; transportation, moving people here and there; information infrastructure. The continuing resolution cuts infrastructure. Those are ``today'' jobs that give us the future. We can go on and on here, but we are nearly out of time. What I would ask my Republican colleagues is to put the feeding frenzy aside and to sit down and look at what really can be cut without harming the future. We can do this. We can make it once again in America if we use our tax policy wisely, if we use our tax money to support American-made products--buses, trains, solar cells, wind turbines. Our tax money should be used to buy those pieces of equipment that are made in America.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Rangel, please join us here.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Certainly, and then I will turn it over to Mr. Rangel.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am delighted to hear the gentleman from Colorado's perspective. Two things immediately on my mind, and I see my senior colleague from the great State of New York has joined us. I will call on him in just a second. One of the things that we are focused on in the Democratic Caucus is making it in America, rebuilding the manufacturing in America so that America can make it. Manufacturing really matters because this is where the middle class is. This is where the middle class jobs are, when you couple that with the power of the unions to make sure that working men and women, the middle class, get a share of the wealth that is generated when we manufacture things. Some what is going on in the Midwest, in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio, and other States is really important in making sure that the wealth that is generated in this Nation is available to everyone in this Nation, particularly those people who are making things in America once more. Wouldn't we all love to go into a Target store and find on every shelf ``Made in America.'' Chinese, fine, you guys are doing okay. But I want those things made in America. Two pieces of legislation that I have introduced, along with many others that my colleagues have introduced, simply say if it is our tax money that is being used to support, for example, solar, photovoltaic systems, the wind turbines, the biofuel systems, if it is our tax money that is being used for the production tax credits or to subsidize the solar cells on your house, buy American-made cells. Buy American. That is American dollars. Use that money in America. Similarly, you and I, we are paying 18\1/2\ cents on every gallon of gas to support traffic, to support highway construction, buses, trains, and light rail systems. Our money should be used to purchase trains and buses and light rail systems that are made in America.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Nephew Joey. It was that other uncle that was making off like a bandit.

Mr. GARAMENDI. If we were to look at the proposal that President Obama put forth in his budget that came out about a month ago, he put forth a program that would hold government expenditures at a 5-year freeze, that is, no increase, but they're being able to continue to pay for those necessary programs for Aunt Maude and for Nephew Rick--was it Nephew Rick?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's continue the conversation for a few moments here. Presumably, these cuts were made to deal with the deficit. We've got a deficit problem. Thank you so very much for going back to the history of how we wound up with this huge deficit problem. It did begin in 2000 when the Clinton administration left office. The projection for the decade 2000 to 2010 was there would be a $5 trillion surplus, $5 trillion surplus. Based upon the policies that were in place when Clinton left office, 2001, $5 trillion surplus, literally paying off all of America's debt--gone, history. What happened? How well you said it. Two tax cuts that were not paid for that cut the revenue of the Federal Government. Two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, not paid for. First time in America's history that we went to war without having some way to pay for it, that is, some tax policy to pay for it. And then on top of that, a Medicare program, the drug benefit, again, a hundred billion dollar program, not paid for, and then the heart attack. The crash of the world economy was caused by excess Wall Street exuberance. In many cases, that exuberance was fraud, misdirection, and the collapse of the financial industry taking down the world economy and our economy.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Two wars.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Please.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Precisely so. At the University of Maryland, I suspect it's similar to what I found in the California State University system, which is the largest university system, they would argue, in the world. We may want to find out what China's actually up to, but it's a huge system. The Pell Grant is a critical element in providing the opportunity for students to stay in school. Yet the continuing resolution supported by the Republicans here on this floor, and now over in the Senate for consideration, would drastically reduce the Pell Grant by some $870 per person at the same time that the tuition at all of the universities is going up, literally making it very difficult for tens or hundreds of thousands of students to stay in school, and these are the future workers in the high-value jobs that we need here in America. So, it's not just the higher education and the Pell Grants that are being cut, but at the beginning, the Head Start program, we're talking about young children who do not have an opportunity because of their family's poverty to get started in education, a proven program that actually works. Now, not every Head Start program--and last year, we put together a program to weed out those that are not successful and bring in new ones that would be able to replace them. But 218,000 young children from impoverished families are going to be thrown off of the Head Start program, not next year, but as soon as this continuing resolution becomes law. We can't let that happen. So we will fight. Firstly, and hopefully, the President, should this somehow pass the Senate and come back to this House and be passed, the President should veto it because I know that he wants to out-educate, out-build, and out-innovate every other country in the world; and you cannot do that unless you have a highly educated workforce soon and later, beginning with those children in the Head Start program. Now, this is a program in your year that I understand that is important to you.

Mr. GARAMENDI. So that was to freeze the level of expenditure and to put in place tax policies so that your oil company executive would begin paying a fair share, rather than getting a very significant tax break, beginning to pay their share back into this economy. Over time, and this was about in 7 years, the percentage of the GDP, the gross domestic product, that was to debt, or to the deficit, would fall from around 11 percent down to about 3 percent, so that it would be managed over time. Going back to your analogy, you've got all of those debts built up during the 2000 to 2010 period or 2008 period, and then, taking time, 6, 7 years, to bring it back under control, not with the kind of chaotic cuts that are now being proposed by our Republican friends where we would actually slow down the economy, throw some 700,000 people out of work, reducing tax revenues, increasing unemployment, unemployment expenses go up, hospital, emergency room expenses go up because people no longer have health care, and on the other end, people losing their homes. They don't have a job, you can't pay the mortgage, you're going to lose your home, so the housing market would also be hit as a result of the proposal that actually passed this floor with Republican support. I think there were only three or four Democrats who voted for it. We need to have a wise policy. We need to make cuts. To be sure, we need to make cuts. And I want to put one example on the table here before we go any further and people think that we're not supporting cuts. We asked last year the Congressional Research Office, a nonpartisan group, to take a look at governmental programs and to tell us where the duplication is, where the unnecessary programs are in governmental programs. That report just came out yesterday. And I was thumbing through it quickly. I don't have it in front of me, but I was going through it. And what struck me was that most of the duplication, most of the unnecessary programs and the waste turned out to be in one Department of this government. It happens to be the Department of Defense. No surprise. No surprise. Duplication, unnecessary expenditures and line after line after line came up that that's where we should be focusing. There are other programs, to be sure, but the big bucks, the big dollars were in the Department of Defense. Now, it is pretty well known, certainly in my district, and I'd like anybody else to know, that I think this war in Afghanistan ought to end right away. That's $120 billion. Let's just say we leave behind in Afghanistan for social and economic development, to deal like a laser on al Qaeda, the real terrorists that may be there and in Pakistan and in other places, let's just say we can take back $100 billion. That happens to be $40 billion more than the continuing resolution that was put forth here. I don't want to get too far off track, but that's a lot of money. And ultimately, we're going to leave, and they're going to go about doing what they need to do over there. But we need to focus on the terrorism and focus significantly like a laser on that. Maybe I got a little bit off track with it, but if you want to save $100 billion, there's $100 billion.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me pick up a couple of the themes that you hit upon. One of them, continuing on with research in this area of this part of the country, and certainly in the San Francisco Bay area, where I represent, health care research is huge. It is an extraordinarily big part of the economy, both the research and then the spin-offs from it. We call this the biotech. And this is almost entirely health care- related biotech. We also have the biofuels, again coming out of research. The Republican continuing resolution reduces funding for the National Institutes of Health by $1.6 billion. We are talking about 25,000 health-related research projects that will either stop, be delayed, or pushed off the track--25,000. We're talking about things that are really serious to us: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, all of the things that affect every American and literally everybody in this world. The research would be slowed down, stopped, and in some cases terminated as a result of the feeding frenzy that went on here on this floor where more than 400 amendments were considered with very, very little thought. Our colleague Betty Sutton talked about, yes, cuts, but be smart with your cuts. Don't just take whatever is on your mind, whatever the latest sound bite is, because it may have a very detrimental effect. You are looking at in this case the National Institutes of Health. Human health. Our well-being as Americans; and that means 25,000 research jobs would be terminated. Now, the press doesn't follow the details. The press follows the game. Is the Senate going to act, or will we have a government shutdown? That's an interesting game. But underlying those will-they won't-they issues are the issues of what actually is in the legislation; and this particular piece of legislation, 700,000 jobs, critical needs that we have as human beings for health, jobs that we need in the future, whether they are in the science field, in the manufacturing field, and jobs for today in the construction industry. Pulling money out of construction for infrastructure; programs to provide clean water for our communities--thousands of those programs will die as a result of the Republican continuing resolution which is now before the Senate. Hopefully, the Senate will be wiser than what happened here on the floor. We can go on and on. I developed a list, I call it the dirty dozen, and these are specific things, education, I know that's a big thing in your district, University of Maryland, I think it's adjacent to your district, but you claim it, don't you?

Mr. GARAMENDI. If America is going to make it, we must once again make it in America. Manufacturing matters, and the first step in the manufacturing of this century is the research. It's the well-educated workforce that's capable of doing the new things and the research that goes with it. You are very fortunate in your district to have some major research facilities. NOAA and NASA are in this area. In my own district I have the Lawrence Livermore labs and, adjacent to it, the Lawrence Berkeley labs and the Berkeley campus as well as the University of California-Davis campus where research is what it's all about. In the continuing resolution, 700,000 jobs. That's a big number, and we just don't focus on that. But we're talking about real people. This is the job next to you that's going to be lost. Sandia Laboratories was in my office no more than an hour ago talking about research for nuclear power and how we're going to deal with that. I told them if the Republicans get their way, 5,500 researchers at the national labs are going to lose their jobs. So what of tomorrow's energy systems? $1.7 billion would be taken out of the Department of Energy's future energy research. So solar, photovoltaic, advanced biofuels, the research for tomorrow so that we can actually wean ourselves from foreign oil, gone. Gone. You go, What is this, just a feeding frenzy? Is it wise? Is there any real thought put on this? I think the answer for me is no. I notice that our colleague, new to the House but not new to the issues from Rhode Island, has joined us. How does this affect Rhode Island? What does this mean to your State?

Mr. GARAMENDI. And reduce the budget deficit. Our President in his State of the Union said that we have to out- educate, out-research, out-manufacture and out-build the rest of the world. Yet the first significant piece of legislation that the Republicans moved through this House goes in exactly the opposite direction. It does in fact reduce the education. I guess 20,000 or 30,000 teachers are going to lose their jobs. Kids will not be there. But the thing that really struck me--we were talking earlier with my colleague from Maryland about this--is the research. In the area of research, which are tomorrow's jobs, what does this CR do? What does the Republican Caucus want to do? They want to cut back on the research. You're looking at a significant number. I think it's over 5,000 key researchers. Could our colleague from Maryland share with us her experience and her knowledge, because you are in one of the research centers.