John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Ellison, thank you so very, very much. And I really want to congratulate you on the success of your reelection. And I know why you were reelected--because you have a heart. You've got a moral center that's focused clearly upon the needs of the men and women in your district who struggle every day to put food on their table, to take care of their children, make sure they have a good upbringing, the clothes, the education, and a roof over their head. I mean, that's really where we ought to be going. That should be our moral compass, and it certainly is yours, and I know it is yours also, Mr. Cohen. Because of that, you're back here. But there's some real serious issues that divide us here in this Congress. We saw one today--the issue of the unemployment insurance. You know, 143 of our Republican colleagues blocked that payment that would give men and women an opportunity to have enough money to take care of the holidays that are ahead of us, put food on the table, maybe buy a few gifts. There is another thing that we need to do, and we've been working at that for more than 2 years, in almost every case without any help whatsoever from our Republican colleagues, and that is to get America back to work. The Recovery Act, 3 million jobs, no Republican votes. The HIRE Act, another few couple of hundred thousand jobs, no Republican votes. Even when it came down to putting teachers in schools, to keep them there--in my own State, 16,600 teachers are in the classroom because we put some more money on the table to help the States and local communities--police and firemen the same, not one Republican vote. Talk about the deficit forever. Yeah, you can talk about the deficit, but it comes down to a point, are you willing to take action to deal with the deficit, and our Republican colleagues have said a resounding ``no'' thus far. They want a $700 billion increase in the deficit to finance a tax break for the wealthiest part of America's society. This is hypocritical. This is wrong. And it's time for us to go. Mr. Ellison, thank you so very much. Mr. Cohen, delighted to have the opportunity to talk to you about these fundamental American issues. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. GARAMENDI. It is a local store. If you have no money, you are not going to do one thing for this economy except be an additional burden to it. And so if you have an unemployment check--and let's keep in mind, that's something that the workers and employers have paid into so that when you lose your job, you have a continuation of income and you use that money to go down and buy some clothing for your kid, stimulate the economy, give the retailer--you buy bread, you buy food, you're able to pay your rent, you're not going to have to face that foreclosure and help drive down the prices of homes in your neighborhood. It's all there. It makes so much sense on the economic level. But on the human, moral level, about where we are as Americans, it's not the fault of that worker out there that lost his job that he doesn't have a job. Many, many reasons for it. Wall Street, greed on Wall Street, all of those things. We can talk about that later, but it's not that worker's fault. It's not his kid's fault. Can't we just muster enough compassion to give those families an opportunity during this holiday season and on into the new year enough money to stay in their home? What are they are going to do, go out and live in their car? They can't afford to buy the gas, I guess they can become the homeless. 143 Republicans this day said go homeless, go live in your car, don't worry about the holiday gifts, don't worry about your children because they will have no food, they'll have no place to live. What are they thinking in this House? 143 Republicans said ``no.'' They blocked, 7 days before Thanksgiving, they blocked an opportunity for 2 million American families to have enough money to put a holiday meal on their table, to put shelter over their family.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. You also raised the very, very important part is that the industrial strength of America has almost always occurred as a result of the research and innovation that has been the hallmark of America. You mentioned the COMPETES Act which deals with energy research in the United States. It deals with scientific research. It's an extremely important one, and unfortunately, our Republican colleagues refused to support that bill when it was here on the House floor. We had enough Democrats at that time to move the bill out. Also, as I recall, I wasn't here and my two colleagues were here at the time--it was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the stimulus bill, that created the largest increase in scientific research ever in America's history. Now, the public may not appreciate that, but that research is finding its way into every part of our industrial future, and from that, the billions of additional dollars that were spent, two things happened: scientists, technicians, lab techs, engineers were employed. They had jobs, and they were developing the future industries of America. Enough from me. Let me turn to my compatriot from the Midwest. Mr. Ellison, you have a very, very important part of the country. It wasn't particularly friendly to us Democrats but friendly to you because of your outstanding leadership. So please share with us your experience there in the upper Midwest.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko, and I know that you are going to have to leave us in a few moments, but you just reminded me of one of those little charts that I often have here, and this one really does show what you just talked about. It displays that the gold here are the Bush years. You can see the enormous number of losses of jobs, and right down here, right here at the bottom, that's the start of the Obama administration in January of 2009, and each month thereafter, each quarter, we saw an improvement. We didn't see the jobs really coming back in the private sector until the last several months, but clearly, in the last several months, those jobs are there. Interestingly, the unemployment rate has not dropped because it is the government jobs that are now being lost but, nonetheless, a net gain in the jobs in the private sector.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, Mr. Ellison, thank you so very, very much, and it's a busy night for all of us. We've just come back to reorganize ourselves and to go forward. Earlier today we selected a minority leader for the next year. It is our current Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and as she left the caucus today she very clearly laid out an agenda for the Democratic Party. That agenda was Make It in America: Manufacturing Matters, and Take Care of the Middle Class. These two things go together. If we are going to have a robust economy, if we are going to be able to move up the employment and reduce the unemployment in America, then we must make it in America. As we do that, we will recreate those very, very important, critical, middle class jobs. There's a whole strategy that's underway here. I used to play football when I was back at the University of California a few years back and did fairly well at it. But there is an analogy that I think we need to keep in mind here to the current economic situation in America. Let's envision for a moment that the first quarter was the 8 years of the Bush administration. What happened? Well, I had a little chart up here a few moments ago, and maybe I ought to put it back up. The first 8 years of the Bush administration--be with me for a moment here--were the years of the first quarter. What happened? It was a wipe-out. It was horrible. The American team was decimated. We were on our backs. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month in the last year of the Bush administration. It was 8 million jobs lost. The second quarter, we brought in the Obama team. It didn't start off too good. The first few minutes of that quarter were rough, but it was an improvement. Each minute that went by, each quarter that went by, we saw an improvement; and by the end of that second quarter, we were building jobs. We were building jobs in the private sector. Now, we're into the second half of the Obama administration. What's going to happen? The Obama team is still on the field. The President's in place. We have a strong minority position going forward in the Democratic Caucus. Our Republican colleagues will take over the management of the House, and we'll see how that goes. On the Senate side, the Democrats are still there. So let's continue the second half as the Democratic half. Here's our plan: we are going to develop strategies--many of them are already in place--to make it in America so that America can make it, and it is based on this: manufacturing matters. That was the Speaker's message. The minority message going forward in this House next year will be ``make it in America so that Americans can make it.'' It's important to be able to take that paycheck home. My oldest daughter, now a little bit older--well, I should say more than a little. I'll never forget the day she came back from her first summer job. She came back, and she showed us her check. She held it up like that; and she said, Dad, I've got my first paycheck. She was proud. She was so proud that she was a working American. And I know for those millions of Americans out there today that can't find a job, they want to be able to come back to their home with that check in hand and tell their children, I'm back at work. I'm working again. I can take care of you. I can provide for your education. I can put the food on the table. That's what they want. And we have a strategy in mind on the Democratic side that will do that. This first quarter that I was talking about, the strategy was basically to increase the wealth of the wealthy, to start two wars and never pay for them, and to take the referees off the playing field and just let it rip. And we were ripped to a fare thee well. Wall Street just went crazy with ultimate greed. And the result--we should have expected it--you take the referees off the field, take the rule book, throw it off into the shower; and what do you think's going to happen in an NFL football game? Well, that's what happened when Wall Street was allowed to run amok during the George W. Bush years. It was the Democrats in this House, in the Senate that laid out a structure to stabilize the financial industry. We got most of that money back, and we'll probably get it all back in the years ahead. It was stabilized, not as good as we would want; but it was stabilized. And then the next piece was brought forward, which was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. By all accounts, by learned economists, 3 million jobs were created or saved as a result of that. And that wasn't the only piece of legislation. There was in that piece of legislation reinvestment in science and technology and research, reinvestment in our roads and streets and bridges, building the foundation for the future of America. Followed up later in this session by Democrats with legislation called the HIRE Act, to put people back to work, to give businesses the financial incentive to hire people, to bring people back onto the payroll, subsidizing those rehires so that people can take that paycheck home and say, Dear, I'm back at work. I've got a job again. That's what Americans want. And the Democrats were delivering that. The last piece of legislation before we went into the election was a piece of legislation to help the governments of America, the cities, the counties, the States, keep people employed in the essential jobs that are the public sector jobs: police, fire, teachers. In California alone, 16,000 teachers are in the classroom this year as a result of that piece of legislation. We want people to work. We put those bills on the floor. Some were actually passed by the Senate, much to our delight; but many, many were not. There were many pieces of legislation that passed here without Republican support, but nonetheless were an effort on our part to put people back to work. We're going to take this thing further in the year ahead and up through the next session of Congress. Let me put this up here for you to see. My colleague, Mr. Ellison, was talking about wind turbines and photovoltaic. Interesting, but not many of these are made in America nowadays. Most of these are imported: wind turbines from Europe and China; photovoltaic cells now mostly from China; buses from Europe and other places. We can make these things in America. We can make these things in America because we once made them in America. In my own district, in the Fairfield/Solano Counties area of California, we used to make a lot of solar panels. And in the Bay Area, there still is a bus manufacturer, one of the few left in America that actually produces buses, the GILLIG Corporation. I will never forget the day that I went out to visit the wind farm in Solano County and talked to the companies that were putting those wind turbines up. I asked them, Boy, that's quite a tower. It's 400 feet high, a lot of steel. Oh, yeah, yeah. We bring that in from Korea. That's interesting. And those blades stretching out the length of a football field, 300 feet? Oh, yeah, those are brought in from Europe right now, but maybe we can begin to manufacture those once again in Colorado. And all the gear boxes and all of the electronics, all of it is imported. And I told them, I said, You want me to continue to support American tax money, subsidizing your wind turbines and your business, and you want those things made overseas? Well, they don't make it in America anymore. And I said, Well, let me put it to you this way: if you want my help, if you want American taxpayer money for subsidies, then you damn well better make it in America; otherwise, our tax money ought not be used to support industries overseas. If it's private money, do what you want to do. If you want to buy a turbine from Europe, fine. If you want to buy a turbine from Japan or China, fine. But use your own money. Don't you use American taxpayer money. But unfortunately, far too much of that has gone on in the years of the past. I have introduced legislation and others are following along so that our tax money is going no longer overseas for buses, for bridge steel, for photovoltaic systems, for wind turbines. Our tax money, when these Democratic bills pass this House and the Senate and signed by President Obama, our tax money will be used to support American industry. Think of what that means. We spend $4 billion a year buying buses with our tax money, our gas tax money. Where is it going now? A lot of it is going overseas for foreign-made buses and trains and equipment. We don't want that anymore. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, some $12 billion was set aside for a high-speed rail, and a sentence was added to that particular piece of the bill that said that when high-speed rail is built in America, it will be built in America by American manufacturers. There are some companies overseas that build these high-speed rail systems. Some of them whined, and others of them--Siemens, in particular--said, Well, if that is where the money is and that is the requirement, then we will build the Siemens high-speed rail system in America. It makes a difference in how you write laws, and the laws that we should write that use our gasoline and our diesel tax money to buy buses, trains, other kinds of rolling stock, and to build bridges and to build highways, that is our gas tax money, that is our diesel tax money, then spend that money on American-made equipment, whether it is a bus, a high-speed rail, a train, or whatever. Again, if you want to use your private money, if you want to buy a Mercedes-Benz, go for it, but not with our tax money. It also applies in the area of energy policy, the same thing. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, there were substantial subsidies for wind and solar and green technologies of all kinds, nuclear and the rest. Good. We need to change our energy policy. We have to move away from our dependence on coal and oil into new, renewable technologies that do not contaminate our atmosphere with carbon dioxide. Are we going to do that successfully? If we allow our tax money, our subsidies to be spent on equipment made overseas, I don't think so. I don't think so at all. That is our money. We should spend it in the future on American-made equipment of all kinds. That should be our policy. That is legislation that I have introduced. That is legislation that is strongly supported. And, I dare say, it is legislation that will be a major part of Make It In America, the Democratic agenda to rebuild the manufacturing sector of this Nation. There is another piece of this puzzle that we need to keep in mind, and that is tax policy. There was a lot of discussion during the campaigns, and a lot of Democrats lost their jobs on this issue. It is the big ``D.'' It is the deficit. A lot of our Republican colleagues, rightfully, said the deficit is a problem. Well, you can go into economics. You can talk about Keynesian countercyclical economic policy and all the rest. And I happen to believe that when the economy is going in the tank, countercyclical measures, Keynesian, using the government purchasing to encourage the growth of the economy, to stabilize the economy, unemployment insurance and other benefits that provide a foundation are extremely important. And, we will soon, on this floor and over in the Senate, take up the extension of the unemployment insurance. I know our Republican colleagues are opposed to this. They think that by ending the unemployment insurance, people will go out and find a job. I think not. And even a few Republicans lost their jobs in this election, and we will see if they get unemployment insurance. They may very well apply for it, and maybe some of my Democratic colleagues will also. But that unemployment insurance keeps food on the table, keeps families together, and provides the shelter that is necessary, because the jobs are not yet there, because these policies are just now going into legislation and eventually into the law and into place. The deficit, what are we going to do about the deficit? We are going to have to get the economy going. That, all economists say, is the most critical part of dealing with the deficit. If the economy doesn't grow, the deficit cannot be dealt with. So we grow the economy. Policies such as we have talked about here are a way of doing it. There is another thing about the deficit that needs to be taken into account, and that is: Where did it come from? Here is a fact. The day that George W. Bush took office in January of 2001, he was handed a $230 billion surplus. The day that President Barack Obama took office, he was handed a $1.3 trillion deficit. Why did it occur? Collapse of the economy, clearly a big piece of it. And the policies of the government just letting Wall Street run amuck, the housing industry run amuck without any rules, all of that was part of it. But there was more to it. The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 added billions and, over time, trillions to the deficit. And the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war, two wars that were financed by borrowing money from China, added to the deficit. Those are the realities. The deficit is part of the economy now; it is part of our fiscal situation. It started, grew, and manifested itself during the George W. Bush years, and now we need to work our way out of it. So how are we going to do that? How do we work our way out of this deficit? Well, with policies like Make It In America, clearly important. The countercyclical measures, providing unemployment insurance, using the power of government to bring jobs into reality, all of those are important. Tax policy, also. A big debate will occur in this Chamber in the days ahead. Before December 31, a debate will occur as to what will be the tax policy of the United States. The George W. Bush tax cuts, which I talked about a moment ago that created a large part of that deficit, are up for debate because they expire on December 31, 2010. The expiration of those tax cuts, most of which went to the wealthy, are going to be up for debate. Our Republican colleagues want to extend all of the tax breaks. The Democrats, President Obama and the rest of us, have a different idea. We think the deficit is really important. We believe that we have to address the deficit. The extension of all of the Bush tax cuts will significantly increase the deficit. Now, on the Democratic side, we believe that the tax cuts to the middle class are extremely important, because they give the middle class the opportunity to have a larger paycheck, less taxes taken out, so that homeowners can pay the mortgage, put food on the table, provide for their families, give kids the books, the backpack, the things they need to go to school. That is our view. The tax cuts should be extended for the middle class. Let's look at what happens in a very, very important policy discussion between the Democrats and the Republicans about taxes. There are a lot of bubbles on this page, but these bubbles represent real money. The George W. Bush tax cuts, if extended, have this effect: For those people that are earning $10,000 or more, they will get $52 in reduced taxes. And so it goes. Let's say a person is earning $75,000 a year. They will get $1,800 of tax cuts. And then it continues to grow. The more income you have, the more wealth you have, the greater the break, the greater the tax cut for you, so that by the time you are a millionaire, your average tax reduction is $17,000. Under the George W. Bush, that is average. That is between $500,000 and $1 million. But if you are a millionaire and you have $1 million adjustable tax, you will receive an enormous benefit. And then, if you get up to the gazillionaires, here is where you are. The Democrats have a different idea. Our idea is that every taxpayer, every taxpayer, the very wealthy and those who are making just $10,000 a year, should receive a tax break on the first $200,000 that an individual makes and $250,000 for a couple filing joint tax returns. Let me make that clear: Every taxpayer gets a tax break, up to $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a couple filing a joint tax return. What is wrong with that? Millionaires get a tax reduction, billionaires get a tax reduction, every taxpayer gets a tax reduction. And this is our plan. But for those who are very, very wealthy, those who are making over $250,000, $500,000, $1 million, $1 billion a year, we think they have an obligation to America, and they should not receive a continuation of the tax break that they have had for the last several years, this kind of a tax break. So we would suggest that their tax break go back to what it was before 2001. In the case of those earning up to $1 million, it would go from 33 percent to 36 percent. Oh, my goodness, a 3 percent increase. How horrible. I think not. What does that amount to for somebody making $1 million a year? Three percent, $30,000. That is not going to bust their checking account. But it is certainly going to be important if you are concerned about the deficit. If you care one iota about the deficit, you better be caring about this, because here is where the real money is, right here. For the tax breaks to continue, for those above $250,000 we are talking about over $700 billion of increased deficit. You can't have it both ways here. You cannot have it both ways. If you are concerned about the deficit, then why in the world would you want those people who are not hungry, who are not homeless, who are not working in our manufacturing plants, why would you want them to be responsible for increasing the deficit? Well, perhaps because that is your constituency. That is not our constituency. The Democratic constituency is the hard-working middle class that will get a tax break, a continuation of what they have had for the last 7 years. This is important. This is about the deficit. Remember, every taxpayer in America gets a tax break up to $200,000 or $250,000. They get a break. But you get more money above that, and your adjusted gross income is greater than $250,000, then for that amount, up to $1 million, you are going to pay 3 percent more. For a millionaire, $30,000. For a billionaire, okay, it will be more dollars, but the increase is only going to be 4-plus percent. This is not going to bust their bank, and it is not going to hurt small business. Let's be clear about this: Small business is not impacted, except for just 3 percent of the small businesses in America, meaning this proposal that the Democrats are going to put forward will provide a tax break for 97 percent of small businesses. It will not increase their taxes for 97 percent of small businesses. For 3 percent, and here is the definition of small businesses, the world's largest construction company, Bechtel, in California, is by the definition that the Republicans use a small business. Billions of dollars of annual income. It is a small business. I think not, but that is the Republican definition. Now, one of my colleagues earlier tonight did a little thing that I just have to do again, because it is very illuminating, so let me do that. I will take down our principal message for the two years ahead: Make it in America. Manufacturing matters. If America is going to make it, we must make it in America. I was talking a moment ago about the Bush tax cut. Here is what it means. The Republican plan, if the Bush tax cuts are extended, will cut taxes for the rich an average of $83,347 a year. $83,347 a year is the average tax reduction for the 1 percent wealthiest Americans, the 1 percent wealthiest Americans. Well, what does that mean? Well, it means that for the next decade, they will be able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-class every year for the next decade. Or maybe they want to buy their wife, girlfriend, whatever, a modest purse, a Hermes, just a handbag, $64,000, every year. That is a lot of purses for the next 10 years. Now, if that is not sufficient, we like to characterize some of these fat cats with their cigar. Well, they won't have trouble buying cigars. These are top-line cigars. They can buy 800 cigars every year. And that is not all. They can light those cigars with a $100 bill. Every single cigar, that is 800 a year, and 800 $100 bills used to light them. I could go on and on, but I see my colleague Paul Tonko has returned. Here is the alternative, Americans. Here is the alternative to the Republican plan. Instead of giving $83,000 a year to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, you can take that same amount of money and give a $30,000-a-year job to 3 million Americans. Our work is about choices, our work is about values, and, frankly, our work is about morality. Tell me what is the morality of allowing the richest 1 percent of Americans to buy 800 cigars a year and light those cigars with $100 bills, $83,347 in tax reductions, versus 3 million Americans, 3 million unemployed Americans who have a family, who are losing their home, who cannot provide food if the Republicans are able to block the extension of the unemployment insurance. This is a moral question. This is a question of what is right and wrong in America. This tax cut shows the dividing line about where you stand in America. Where do you stand? Are you with the richest 1 percent, so they can go out and buy a Mercedes E class $80,000 vehicle every year for the next decade, or do you stand with families and want to put a paycheck on the table? I think it is pretty clear. Mr. Tonko, thank you for rejoining us.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That was in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, wasn't it?

Mr. GARAMENDI. With this ``Make It In America'' agenda, as Speaker Pelosi and soon to be Minority Leader Pelosi said as she exited the Organizational Caucus of the Democratic Party today, there are two principles that the Democratic Caucus will follow: One, we will make it in America so that America can make it. Two, we will do this on behalf of the middle class so that those jobs are there. Interestingly, while the President hasn't used this term very often of ``make it in America,'' President Obama has nonetheless proposed policies that are directly in line with this--specifically, that every business in America be given the opportunity to immediately write off any capital investments they make. Now, it's already in the law. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, there is in the law an automatic write-off of a capital investment made by a small business. That was increased in a subsequent bill that we voted out, without any Republican support, that allows small businesses to write off immediately. The President would go further. I've introduced a bill that would do that--other members of the Democratic Caucus have also--so that businesses would be incentivized to invest now in the capital equipment that will provide the foundation for future jobs. Invest now. This is part of our strategy. It is an overarching Democratic strategy, one that we have been working on for some time, beginning with, among the first bills passed by Congress and signed by the President way back in 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Would you like to wrap this up here?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity. Coming off the elections, everyone wants to know what the voters had on their minds. I'll share with you a few things that I heard from my voters in my district and throughout California--perhaps experiences similar from around America. They want jobs. They want to work. I think all of us in one way or another understands and feels within us the need to work. It's part of our lives. There are a few, undoubtedly, around who don't ever want to work--and okay for them--but for most Americans, they want a job. They want the opportunity to bring home a paycheck, to support their families--to provide for their food, their shelter, their opportunities for education, and to go on a vacation every now and then. That basic instinct--that basic desire to care for your family, to help build a community--I think is part of America. Americans want jobs. If there were ever a message from this year's elections, it's that. Now, this isn't new to those of us who are here in the Chamber. It's not new to the Democrats, and I'm sure it's not new to my Republican colleagues also; but who actually over the last 2 years amongst all of us in this Chamber and in government have actually been working to create those jobs? I think it's the Democrats. We are going to make that point here today, not only about the past actions that have been taken over the last 2 years, but about what's coming in the future. Early in 2010, many of us on the Democratic side began to formalize and to formulate a strategy, and we call that ``Make It In America.'' If America is going to make it, then we must, once again, make it in America. We must rebuild our manufacturing industry, which is where we make things. As a child, I remember looking at the pictures of America, of the great poetry of America's birth of industry, when the robust strength of this Nation was seen in the manufacturing sector. It was heavy industry at the time. It was the steel industry and the auto industry. That enormous strength of America carried us through World War II when we literally built the armaments to take on Nazi Germany and Japan. It was done here in the industries of America. The manufacturing base of this Nation needs to be rebuilt, and it is the Democratic Party and the programs that my colleagues and I will be talking about today which will cause that to happen. America will make it when we make it in America. Joining me tonight are two of my fellow colleagues--Paul Tonko, from the once and future great industrial part of New York, and Mr. Ellison, from the great Midwest. So I would like to turn to them for a few moments for introductory comments, and then we'll turn back, and we'll begin to hit not only what was done over the last 2 years but, also, where we are going in the future. Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me for interrupting. That was the policy during the Clinton period, and it led to the surplus because it put fiscal discipline into this building and over on the other side in the Senate. Similarly, it has now been reinstituted by the Democrats a year and a half ago. I want to just wrap up here. I want to go back to ``Make It In America'' and wrap with this. Our time has almost expired here.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. If you or anyone really cares about the deficit, you need to really pay very close attention to this debate that is going to happen here in this chamber and here in Washington, D.C., in the days and weeks ahead. And that is, do we give an enormous tax break to the wealthiest of America, and in doing so increase the deficit by over $700 billion, or do we limit that tax break to all taxpayers up to $200,000 or $250,000? An extremely important debate that will take place. For me, it is time to think about the deficit. It's time to get real about the deficit. And if you really care about the deficit, if you really care about growing the economy, the point that you just made, then limit the tax reduction so that all Americans receive a tax deduction up to $200,000 or $250,000 of adjusted gross income. And keep in mind it's adjusted gross income, not gross income. Adjusted gross income. That's after all the deductions.

Mr. GARAMENDI. By PAYGO, you mean that the Congress and the Senate in enacting tax cuts balance those tax cuts off against reductions of program or vice versa. If you have a new program, the way you get the revenue to pay for it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The PAYGO, meaning as applied to us in the Congress.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I, along with my colleagues Congressman George Miller and Congressman Jerry McNerney, rise to recognize Anne Cain, Contra Costa County Librarian, to congratulate her and wish her well as she approaches her retirement. Anne has dedicated 35 years of commitment and service to public libraries. Having achieved a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Denver, Colorado, and upon completion of her Master's in Library Service from Simmons College in Boston, Massachusetts, Anne began her career as the Branch Assistant and Social Service Librarian at Newton Free Library in Massachusetts. In 1975, Anne relocated to California and served as the Principal Librarian for Pasadena Public Library, where she provided reference services, service to the business community, children, teens, and adults. In 1989, Anne moved north to the San Francisco Bay Area and joined the Contra Costa County Library system as Head of the Central Library responsible for service to the public but also for centralized countywide services. She was named Assistant County Librarian just 1 year later, responsible for the day-to-day operations of all Contra Costa County Libraries, services, and programs. In 1998, Anne was named County Librarian responsible for library service at 25 locations in 18 cities and unincorporated areas across Contra Costa County. Anne worked closely with the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, city governments, Friends of Libraries and numerous other community groups and concerned citizens to plan, evaluate, and deliver library service tailored to the needs of the communities it serves. Anne is a leader in the fight to adequately fund public libraries. Nearly two decades ago when the State of California cut Special District Augmentation Funding to counties, Contra Costa County libraries lost nearly a third of their funding. The system was nearly decimated. Anne has worked with cities throughout the county to build trust, local engagement, and support for libraries. In recent years, Anne has been actively involved in statewide legislative activities and served as Chair of the California Library Association's Legislative Committee. In 2006, she was selected by the California Library Association as its member of the year. Madam Speaker, we invite our colleagues to join us in honoring Anne for her tireless and dedicated service to the people of Contra Costa County. We also join her family, colleagues and friends in congratulating Anne on a successful and fulfilling career, and a very well-deserved retirement.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I intended to speak to the 49th anniversary of the Peace Corps. On this day, 49 years ago, Congress passed and the President signed the authorization for the Peace Corps. Over those 49 years, tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of Americans have served this country in what is known as the most difficult job you will ever love, and my wife and I did, indeed, love it. However, the tax proposal that's before us is that every American taxpayer will receive a lower tax rate on the first $250,000 that they have in adjusted gross income, whether they are a small business or an individual taxpayer. Those that have greater would pay somewhat higher tax. The other alternative is to run up the deficit another $700 billion, which I think is a particularly bad idea. But back to the Peace Corps. It's a great institution, and it's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and we think that's a good thing. And that's the rest of the story.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me, if you might yield for a moment, Dr. Kagen. The stimulus bill was actually a tax cut bill?

Mr. GARAMENDI. We have talked about various ways we can make it in America, certainly the fair trade dealing with China's currency and the whole idea of competition. We have talked about the way in which we have to make sure that our tax laws support programs of hiring in the United States rather than off-shoring. In all of these things I would hope our Republican colleagues would come along with us to make it in America. But on maybe 20 different bills that we have moved out of this House, there has been virtually no Republican support. There are other opportunities, and we offer these opportunities to our Republican colleagues to come along with us on some other programs. A piece of legislation that I am working on deals with these buses that were once made in the Midwest, in Ohio, and are still made in California. Right now we spend about $6 billion of our gasoline tax money to buy buses, light rail trains, intercity rail systems for Amtrak and the like. In the law, there are four waivers that allow the Department of Transportation to ignore the Buy American rules, and so what has happened over the last 20 years or so is that those waivers are routinely used and transit districts simply buy buses that are made overseas. Our tax money flows out of the country, our jobs disappear, and our industry, the transportation industry, is almost gone. My legislation tells the Department of Transportation, no, no, those waivers are finished. Three of the four waivers are gone. If there is an extraordinary cost difference, okay. But we want that money spent on American jobs so that when in the San Francisco Bay area, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, BART, goes out, as they will, to buy $300 million of train sets for the BART system, where will those trains be made? Will they be made in China? Given the monetary advantage that China has, quite possibly they could win the bid. Given the issues of worker safety and environmental issues that China ignores, they may win the bid. But my legislation says no, we are going to make these trains in America, $300 million there, $6 billion to $7 billion a year across the Nation for transit districts everywhere, we can make it in America if we bring our tax money back. So whether it is wind turbines or solar or buses and trains, it is our tax money. Let's spend it in America, rebuild the American manufacturing system, and make it in America. Would that be a good thing for Ohio?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Dr. Kagen, thank you so very much for joining us. As I started this discussion, I used an analogy of a football game. We're talking about the most important game of all. It's not even a game. The most important thing of all is the American economy and how to keep it going and growing. To go back over it, during the Bush years, these are all of the reasons we've stated: Two wars for which money was borrowed, creating an enormous deficit; the deregulation of Wall Street, anything goes; the collapse of Wall Street; the issues of tax policy where the wealthy were rewarded for their wealth, not for their work, which led to the largest decline in the American economy since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It was plain to see that when President Obama came in. That was the first quarter. In the second quarter, we began to see policies that were put forth by the Democratic Party and the Democratic administration, policies that began to restore the American economy--a steady upward climb. It's not where we need to be, but we are on the road, and we did all of that with almost no Republican help at all. If you go back through all of those votes, the Republican Party was standing over there, saying no, no to the programs that actually brought us back, and we continue on today. We are in the locker room, ready for the second half, which begins in January 2011. The question is: Which team are you going to put back on the field? Where do you stand? Well, we know pretty clearly where the Republican Party stands. It stands with the old failed policies of the George W. Bush administration. It stands for ending Social Security and for ending Medicare. It stands for anything goes and no regulation; let it rip and it's ripped us off. It stands for tax breaks for the wealthy and the heck with the middle class. That's where the Republican Party stands. The Democratic Party wants to make it in America, to rebuild the American manufacturing base and the American manufacturing industry. If you would, Dr. Kagen, put the picture back up of the family, of the family in your district in the paper industry. This family is losing its job because of unfair competition. If we were to use the Capital Investment Program together with the program that you talked about of restoring fairness and trade, perhaps that company, that family and families in my district would be able to have well-paid, middle class American jobs. Dr. Kagen, would you like to close us off here and bring us back to real America.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's turn to our colleague from the manufacturing center of America.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Dr. Kagen, thank you so very much and my colleagues for joining us, and thank you to my colleagues in the Democratic Party, who are committed to manufacturing matters and to making it in America. We have put forth many, many policies and programs. We ask our Republican colleagues to join us in making it in America. I yield back my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, we know that the central New York area along the Erie Canal was one of the birthplaces of the American Industrial Revolution. I think there was something in the Midwest, too. My colleagues here from the Midwest may have something to add to it. Ohio, I believe? Do you still make things in Ohio?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me take a moment here and bring it back to something you were talking about. You mentioned the wind turbines and the solar systems. We developed the technology here in the United States, and, in fact, the stimulus bill that provided the largest increase ever in research is going to once again put the United States in a position where we can dominate these green industries. That research is there. Incidentally, not one Republican voted for that enormous research program and tax cut and jobs program and infrastructure program. Not one Republican voted for the program that created 3 million jobs. But there is something going on here that we need to pay attention to, and this is a piece of legislation that I have introduced. We are spending billions of dollars to promote the wind industry, the solar industry. These are tax credits that we give to companies for a production tax credit or for someone that's putting a solar cell on their house. We need to make sure that that tax money is spent on American-made wind turbines and American-made solar panels, biofuels, and other kinds of green technologies. If it's our tax money, then Buy America. Buy American. A little later here, I suspect, I want one of our colleagues, Marcy Kaptur, to come and talk to us about a bill that passed out of this House just hours ago that would require that you and I, not just talk the talk, but that we walk the walk and that in the equipment that we purchase for our offices, it be made in America, once again, American tax money used to buy American-made products. It's a piece of legislation I have introduced. I like it. I like it because it's going to create in my industry wind turbines that are actually going to not only be on the hills but actually made in America. Enough for me for a few minutes. I notice my colleague from New York, Mr. Paul Tonko, has joined us. You have been at this a long time. You were in one of the original manufacturing sectors of America. Please tell us.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let's continue on. I notice that another colleague has joined us from the great State of New York, but let me turn back to our colleague that was raising the point about the Chinese currency.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me for a moment, gentlemen, but part of our agenda as Democrats then is to make sure that we have fair trade, that we have a fair balance between our Nation, our manufacturers, and those in other countries who may be--not may be, but are--subsidizing their exports, such as China and the currency thing. Dr. Kagen? And this is a colloquy, so we will go back and forth here. So please.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, today, I joined Congressional colleagues at a bipartisan ceremony in commemoration of the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Nine years ago, our great country experienced the tragedy of a generation. Nearly 3,000 people were taken from this world too soon when violent extremist terrorists in Al Qaeda hijacked four planes and attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Among those who died that fateful day were hundreds of brave first responders who risked everything to save others. I join my fellow Americans today in remembrance. As our battle with Al Qaeda continues, on this day, it is our responsibility as proud Americans to honor those who have perished by recommitting ourselves to the values of our great Republic. On 9/11, we lost thousands of men and women across ethnicities, national origins, religious perspectives, and ideologies. Our country includes the rich tapestry of the world, and our success has always depended on our willingness to embrace everyone who is willing to work hard and play by the rules. We cannot allow cruel acts of terror to divide us. We are the United States of America, but Al Qaeda wants us to be the Divided States of America. There is no more appropriate day to demonstrate to the world that we refuse to back down from our shared civic values. Today, let's stand together, united as Americans, in somber mourning for those we've lost and in hopeful yearning for the bright future we can forge together.