John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) for his thoughts. I started off with a better deal, better wages, better jobs, or jobs at all. The Make It In America agenda, which we have been talking about here for 5 or 6 years, long before President Trump came along, involves tax policy. I am bringing to our attention tonight a tax issue that will create jobs in America and, frankly, no longer promote the offshoring of jobs. Another piece of our puzzle on making it in America, and better wages, better jobs, and better future, is something that has been much discussed in recent days, particularly with regard to the Puerto Rican situation, and that is the Jones Act. Joining me tonight to discuss the Jones Act, why it is important to America, why it is a major job opportunity and continuation for American mariners, American shipowners, as well as America's shipyards, is Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the State of Washington for very clearly laying out why the Jones Act is good for all of us. We held a hearing today, an extensive hearing on the maritime industry and on the Jones Act in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, and it was laid out with facts and figures, many of those behind you on the chart. There has been a lot of talk about the Jones Act somehow harming Puerto Rico. The fact is, the truth is exactly the opposite. The Jones Act allows for three American shipping companies using American ships with American mariners to deliver twice a week--each of those companies--twice a week on what amounts to a milk run from Jacksonville, Florida, to Puerto Rico, all the goods and services that they need. With the hurricane having happened, these three companies are providing all of the FEMA, all of the emergency aid, and they have additional capacity that has not yet been used in delivering the goods and services that Puerto Rico needs in the wake of the hurricane. In addition to that, the Jones Act is not just between the islands of Puerto Rico, Guam, or Hawaii. It is the inland waterways of America-- the great Mississippi River system, all of the barges and tugs and the rest. If the Jones Act didn't exist, we would have companies, mariners, and sailors operating in the heart of our country from everywhere in the world. This is a major national security issue beyond what we will talk about. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) so very much for participating in this. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) to carry on with these issues.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, there are so many things on the minds of Americans: three hurricanes in a month, disasters in Houston, Florida, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands. We just heard our colleague from the Virgin Islands speak of the problems that that island has. Millions of Americans harmed in so many ways, lives lost, just yesterday, the tragedy in Las Vegas. It is hard not to focus only on those issues, but in many, many ways, Las Vegas aside, the issue of the hurricanes and what we will do as Americans going forward is on my mind and, I suspect, on the minds of many. As we review and as we figure out how to deal with those disasters and how we rebuild, I would like us all to keep in mind that our goal, in addition to bringing these economies back together again, putting people back in their homes, their businesses, and the infrastructure, that we keep in mind that we ought to be looking for better jobs and better wages for all Americans--and certainly for those in the low- and middle-income brackets--and a better future. We think about Puerto Rico and their future. How do we make it a better future? Well, we certainly know that there is a problem in much of America, stagnation of wages, so higher pay becomes critically important. We need to deal with the cost issues that go into this, and we need to make sure that all Americans, wherever they may be, in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or Washington, Virginia, wherever, that they have the tools to compete. So today we are going to take 1 hour, and we are going to talk about ideas that need to be discussed here in the House of Representatives: legislation, existing programs such as the Jones Act, shipbuilding, and the like. I would like to ask my colleague, Brendan Boyle, to begin the discussion with a bill that he and his colleagues, or our colleagues, are introducing. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Veasey very much for bringing to our attention the role of the unions in maintaining wages throughout the United States. If we are looking for a better deal, better jobs, better wages, and a better future, certainly the union members in the maritime industry will--and have been able to--achieve that. The great risk is legislation may be moving through the Senate and the House that would terminate the Jones Act and, along with it, some 400,000 jobs in the United States, 100,000 of those directly in the shipyards that are building these American-built ships for the intercoastal and for the brown water, the river transportation, as well as the open ocean transportation. So we have got something here that is very important, and that is Make It In America, a better deal for Americans comes through the Jones Act. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Veasey very much for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I notice that my colleague from Chicago, Ms. Schakowsky, is here once again to pick up on something we talked about earlier in our Make It In America agenda. If she would look here, number two on the Make It In America agenda is taxes. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) to talk about taxes.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is properly dressed for the Blue Collar Caucus.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, excuse me for a moment, forgive me for interrupting, but the gentlewoman said something that caught my attention. American corporations that build a factory in China are able to deduct that cost of that factory against their American taxes? Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so very much for bringing the voice of Chicago to the floor on a very good piece of legislation. I believe that has already gone across the desk, and I didn't get a chance to sign on to it before the gentlewoman put it across the desk, but I will forgive the gentlewoman for that.

Mr. GARAMENDI. As a proud member of the Blue Collar Caucus, I thank the gentlewoman for both wearing blue and bringing a message from that caucus. It is extremely important. The Make It In America agenda, which we have been talking about here for at least the last 8 or 9 years, has all of these pieces. The gentlewoman talked about trade, taxes, infrastructure, education, and labor--all the pieces of this puzzle. As we discussed today, there are programs that are clearly going to be at risk. If the Jones Act somehow gets repealed or gets waived or otherwise is made less effective, then there are some 400,000 jobs in American shipyards across the Nation that will be lost. These are shipyards in Philadelphia, the Gulf Coast, and out in the West, as we heard Ms. Jayapal talk about Seattle. San Diego has a major shipyard, the NASSCO shipyard. These are places where the Jones Act allows for American ships to be built not in China, but, rather, in America. Make It In America. The Jones Act does that. Mr. Speaker, I will give you a couple of examples. One of the companies that ships goods from Jacksonville, Florida, to Puerto Rico is the TOTE shipping company. They recently spent nearly $400 million on two of the most advanced clean energy ships anywhere in the world. These ships were built in San Diego. They are LNG-powered, natural gas-powered ships, and they are now plying the Jacksonville-Puerto Rico trade twice a week, back and forth. Crowley is another company operating in that same area, again, twice a week, back and forth. They, too, will soon have LNG-powered ships operating in that area--ships built in America with American workers and American steel, American engines, and the rest. So this is critically important. There are 100,000 jobs in the shipyards. If we repeal the Jones Act, they are gone and, along with it, the ability of the American shipbuilding industry to supply commercial ships to move critical national security men and equipment wherever it needs to go in the world. The U.S. military is dependent on the American merchant marine system to move 90 percent of the personnel, equipment, supplies, tanks, artillery, and all the rest around the world. We have huge airplanes. They are essential. We see those operating in Puerto Rico now. But they are not supplying the great mass of goods and services that are needed. So the plea from all of us who understand what the Jones Act is really about is to say don't do away with this critical piece of America's infrastructure. At the hearing today, I heard my Republican colleague, Mr. Hunter, chairman of the committee, quote the great free market idol, Adam Smith. All too often, the free marketers of the world read those paragraphs that serve their purposes, but if they were to read the next few paragraphs in Adam Smith's work, ``The Wealth of Nations,'' they would read that Adam Smith said very clearly at the period of time he was writing that it was absolutely essential for the British Government to protect the British merchant marine and the British maritime industry. That same admonition should come to the American Congress the same way: protect this vital industry, protect the merchant marines. We do not want and we cannot have foreign ships, foreign tugboats, foreign barges operating up and down the Mississippi River. What are they carrying? They are carrying gasoline, diesel oil, natural gas, volatile substances. They are carrying cement. They are carrying grain. Do you want to have Yemeni sailors on the Mississippi? Do you want to have ships owned by China, tugboats, barges owned by China on the Mississippi River? If that is what you want, then do away the Jones Act, because that is exactly what would happen. If you want good American wages with good American mariners operating on the inland waterways through the Gulf Coast and up the East Coast, if that is what you want, then you better keep the Jones Act. If you do away with the Jones Act, it is guaranteed we will have the elimination of the American maritime industry. If you want American ships operating on the West Coast from Seattle to Anchorage, then you better keep the Jones Act, similarly with Hawaii and Guam. Most of all, do you want to have the United States military phone China and say: We need to ship a few things to the South China Sea to deal with your encroachment on the islands in the South China Sea; gee, Mr. China, would you please send us some ships so that we can put the military equipment on those ships? Is that what we want? For those men and women here in this Congress and the Senate that want to do away with the Jones Act, think about it. If you do away with the Jones Act, you do away with the American merchant marine. Then this country relies upon China, the largest ship-owning nation in the world, or maybe sailors from wherever. What background would they have? So let's pay attention here. Adam Smith said to the British Government: Maintain the cabotage laws. Do not allow the maritime industry for Great Britain to go away. So we should be paying attention to the master of the free market system, who wasn't totally for the free market but understood the necessity of protecting certain industries that are critical to the future of a country. One more thing is on my mind. Two years ago, the Congress of the United States decided that we ought to, for the first time in some 50 years, export our crude oil. We have been exporting natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas for some time. We added to that the export of oil. Is that strategic national asset on American ships with American sailors? The answer is no. But if we passed a couple of paragraphs of law and required, as we once did with the North Slope oil when that opened up in the sixties, that that oil be transported on American- built ships with American sailors, if we were to reinstitute that law for just a small percentage of the strategic national asset, crude oil and natural gas, just a small percentage of that on American-built ships with American sailors, we could build ships in America. Not just a few ships, but over the course of the next 20 or 30 years, 50 or 60 ships, providing thousands upon thousands of jobs in our American shipyards. Right now, where are those ships built? China, Japan, and Korea, but not in America. We ought to pay attention to the 1960 law that opened up the North Slope of Alaska that required that oil from Alaska be on American-built ships with American sailors. That lasted for almost 40 years. Then slowly, slowly it was set aside. Now that oil is on ships that are built in China, Korea, and Japan. If we want good-paying jobs in America, if we want a better future, if we want better jobs, if we want an opportunity for Americans to earn a good middle class wage in the shipyards on the ships, then maintain the Jones Act and think seriously about a law that would create even more jobs in American shipyards. We will soon be introducing a bill called the Energizing American Maritime Act. Using a strategic national asset that we are now able to export, natural gas and oil, we require that a small percentage of that--not 50 percent, not 70 percent, not even 40 percent, but maybe 20 percent--be on American ships with American sailors. There are many, many things we can do to create good-paying jobs in America. The Jones Act is one such law that has been in place for nearly a century. It served America well and will continue to serve America well if we maintain it and if we don't allow waivers that simply blow holes in that law, and if we take a strong Make It In America agenda. The President likes to talk about it, but talk is cheap. Legislation makes that talk real. Trade policy, taxes: We just heard about the patriot tax encouraging American businesses with real tax incentives and discouraging American businesses that want to offshore the jobs. Energy policy: I think I just talked about energy policy a moment ago. Put that oil and natural gas on American ships. Labor: Good-paying jobs in the shipyards, good-paying jobs on the ships. Education: The maritime academies provide the education that is necessary to do that. Infrastructure: Freight movement, the ports, channels deepening, maintaining the locks on the Mississippi and the Ohio. Infrastructure, again, good-paying jobs. We can do a lot. It takes laws and it takes men and women on the Democratic side and the Republican side that come together and say: We can do this. We can do this for America and for America's workers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Espaillat very much for bringing to our attention the possibilities. The U.S. military is awesome. I am very thankful that Adam Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, together with you and other colleagues, have called upon the President to deploy to Puerto Rico a military task force. The military is the most organized of all of our Federal organizations. They have the ability, they have the resources, and they certainly have the capability of addressing at least the immediate needs of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and even other islands that have been devastated in the Caribbean. Ultimately, the task falls to those of us who are elected to represent the American people in the office of the Presidency, the House of Representatives, or in the Senate. And the questions we must ask ourselves: Are we meeting our responsibilities; are we deploying the resources of this Nation to assist in these devastated communities; are we providing the funding necessary to carry out these tasks; or are we engaged in legislation that would create a healthcare disaster on top of the natural disasters? Well, thankfully, it appears as though four Senators have stopped a Republican effort in the Senate that is a repetition of an effort made here in the House of Representatives months ago, to stop the creation of a healthcare crisis in America. There is more out there that will be brought forward. Tomorrow, my colleagues on the Republican side will meet to discuss tax reform. By all appearances, it appears that tax reform is likely to turn out--at least their version of it, is likely to turn out to be serious tax cuts for the superwealthy and for corporations with a hope and a prayer some day that it might create jobs. There is precious little economic history to indicate that that would happen, but there is a lot of economic history and studies that indicate you continue to cut taxes for the superwealthy and we will have even a more serious inequality of wealth in the United States. That is a discussion for tomorrow and beyond. Today, now, the discussion must focus on our American citizens who are not in harm's way, they are being harmed. My plea to my colleagues here is to put aside these other issues, to focus the great power and empathy of the American people on meeting the needs of our American citizens in Houston, Florida, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and then to reach out beyond to others who have been hurt, wherever they may be--Mexico City, other islands in the Caribbean. Finally, a plea to our President. Mr. Speaker, a plea to our President: Tone it down. This is not a schoolyard for bombast and for belligerent talk. This is extraordinarily serious. It has been said by people who have followed these issues over the decades that we are closer to nuclear war now than we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, please tone it down. Speak softly; tweet softly; don't worry about our big stick that we have. Go to the negotiation table; be humble; be firm; no nukes on the Caribbean peninsula. We can do that. We can do it. This is my prayer.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues in the House of Representatives, most of whom are not here right now but perhaps they are back in their office listening, and really to the American public and folks here in the Chamber, it has been a most interesting week-- well, actually, the last 3 weeks. The United States has been hit with three major hurricanes. In Houston, they say was a 500-year storm. The Florida Keys, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, disasters beyond, in many cases, human understanding. We have never seen 50 inches of rain in a matter of days. We have seen storms in the Caribbean that have been vicious. I don't believe we have ever seen one that completely wiped out an island, leaving 3.5 million people without water and power, islands in the Florida Keys flattened, and floods throughout most of Florida. These are natural disasters. We look to our neighbors in the south, and we see Mexico City, that great capital, once again, lay bare with an earthquake. Further south and west of that, another community. Yet, just yesterday and the day before, another earthquake. These are natural disasters. As Members of Congress representing 350-plus million Americans, we have an obligation. You heard a couple of our colleagues speak to this. I went to bed last night with visions and pictures of Puerto Rico on the television screen. I woke up this morning, turned the television on, and it was all about the President calling a couple of athletes a name that I should not repeat on the floor. What is going on here? How could it be that, 2 days after the devastation of Puerto Rico, our President would decide that the appropriate thing for him to do is to call out African-American athletes who are protesting the death of African Americans at the hands of police? All of that was followed in just a few moments by experts who were saying that we are closer to nuclear war today than we have been since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the sixties. What in the world is going on here? What is happening? Why are we in this situation? Why is it that we are not debating here on the floor of the House how to provide relief to Houston, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands--our own citizens? Is there a debate going on in the House of Representatives in any hearing? No, there isn't. Is there a debate on the floor about the necessity to rebuild, to find the money to put back the lives of people who are seriously at risk today? What are we doing? Well, here is what we are doing. We have got a President that is in a third grade brawl with a world leader. You may as well be in a classroom or on the school grounds with a bunch of third graders calling out each other about their mother. That is what our President did over the weekend. How did that promote our humanity, our empathy? Not a bit. How did it promote our division? Oh, it did a very good job of that. We see fans in the NFL stadiums booing the athletes. We see more division in our country. We see natural disasters. And our response? Let's pass a bill that will create a humanitarian crisis for 30 million Americans who will lose their healthcare over the next decade. That is what the Senate did over these last few days, a replication of what happened here on the floor of the House of Representatives months ago. I think Americans thought those days were over when we would see the Senate and the House purposely harm people, purposely set out with legislation to physically harm people by denying them the health insurance that they have been provided over the last few years. How can it be? How can it be that we would allow this to happen? But it is happening. Thankfully, four Senators stood up to the President, stood up to the Republican leadership in the Senate and said: No. No. I am not going to set out on a vote that is going to harm people. I thank them. They had courage. Where were the others? Where were my Republican colleagues here on this floor who voted to do exactly the same thing months ago? Millions of Americans purposely denied their health insurance. Where is the outrage? It is out there. Take a look at the polling. Take a look at the disabled men and women who were in the Senate Chamber yesterday who were physically dragged out of there--a fine testament to America's democracy. Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage that there is not a bill on the floor this week to take care of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands--American citizens? I guess there is something more important to do. Where is our President? What is his tweet today? His tweet today is who knows what. I guess he is going to Puerto Rico next week, thankfully. Maybe there will be some humanity expressed and he will put in motion the great power of this administration to bring relief and to ask the Congress to appropriate the money that is going to be necessary. Maybe. Maybe it will be another tweet about a leader who has the fourth largest army in the world. You have third graders on the school ground bullying and demeaning, and you expect somehow to go anywhere except into a brawl? There is a road that we could take, but it begins with reducing the rhetoric. There is a road we can take with North Korea. It is called negotiation. Don't say it is not possible. It is far more possible and would have a far better outcome than all the bombast, all the rhetoric, all the threats. All of us have been in the third grade. We know what happens when two boys start fighting on the school ground. These boys have awesome weapons. We have 25,000 U.S. military on the DMZ border. They are ready to fight. We have an awesome military. It should only be used with wisdom. It should not be put at risk unnecessarily. There are tens of thousands of American servicemembers, spouses, and children nearby, and millions of South Koreans and North Koreans. It is time for our President to speak softly. We know we have a big stick. Speak softly. Tone it down. Move toward the negotiations. It would be far more fruitful. We can do this. I go back home, as I did this weekend, and I do my community events. People come up to me and say: I am scared; I am frightened. What is our President doing? Why is he acting this way? Why is Kim Jong-un acting this way? We don't need another crisis. We have got to deal with this. We have got to do it with wisdom, plenty of strength, and determination. God help us if we get in a war on the Korean Peninsula again. Consider for a moment that the 1953 Korean war never ended. It was an armistice. It is time for a peace treaty. It is time to recognize that there are two countries. It is time to settle this down. It is time for this Congress to turn its attention to the reality of the crisis that faces Americans--yet we don't. Instead, we have had more than 2 weeks of attention on legislation that would purposely harm millions upon millions of Americans by taking away their health insurance. We have got to put that behind us. We have got to find ways to improve the Affordable Care Act. We must do this. People are hurting. There are problems with the Affordable Care Act, and we know where the fixes are, but we can't get our colleagues on the Republican side to work with us here in the House of Representatives. Perhaps we will find Senator Murray and Senator Alexander coming back together again, since it appears as though the ill-begotten Graham- Cassidy legislation is dead. Maybe Senators Murray and Alexander can come back together and work together. I would ask my Republican colleagues here to work with us on the Democratic side to work towards solutions to strengthen and provide the necessary changes and fixes to the Affordable Care Act. We can do it. While we are doing that, let us use the normal, natural empathy that resides in each one of us to reach out to those in Puerto Rico, Florida, Houston, and the Virgin Islands and use our innate compassion to provide the resources for them to rebuild. Then, let's take it a step further. Instead of calling out Mexico, instead of getting into a verbal and perhaps economic conflict with Mexico, let us work with Mexico. Reach out to Mexico City now. Provide them with the assistance that this great country can. There are so many things we must spend our time on. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), who spoke a few moments ago. I ask him to join me here on the floor.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That might be sufficient, Mr. Chairman, although I doubt I will persuade the worthy chairman with whom we have had this little tussle back and forth. The fact of the matter is that there are two accounts to deal with this issue of the nuclear sites and the maintenance of them. One is a maintenance facility, which is plussed-up and sufficient to maintain and upgrade the existing facilities, particularly the plutonium pit, the metallurgical facility, as well as continue the construction of the highly enriched uranium facilities. Those are already available and that money is in those accounts. It turns out that this money for recapitalization is for the construction of a new pit production facility. The NNSA claims that it needs that facility to build additional pits beyond the 20 to 30 that could be constructed in the refurbished existing pit. The need for the new pit production facility is specifically for the interoperable nuclear warhead, which is not likely to be needed. And should it be decided at a future date to be needed, there is plenty of time to build the facility and construct the additional nuclear plutonium pits. The bottom line is that this money is not needed now for that facility. Could the money be used in the nonproliferation? It could. Why were those agreements delayed? Because of many different reasons, but the fact of the matter is that those agreements are going to be going forward. The fact of the matter is that there is a continuing problem of loose nukes and materials around the world, which can cause a problem. The Mosul situation is one of many examples. The cuts that do take place in smuggling, in research, and the like are serious. We ought to be paying attention. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the continuation of this discussion, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to be on a roll here, given the last amendment being accepted on a ``yes'' vote. This amendment would make America more secure by focusing our very limited tax dollars on programs to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists rather than excess national laboratory infrastructure spending. According to The Washington Post, the world dodged a bullet when ISIS failed to realize that it had the ingredients for a dirty bomb under its control in Mosul for more than 3 years. This underscores the importance of the need for U.S. leadership and resources to secure nuclear material around the world. My amendment would provide an increase of $118 million for the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, DNN, funding. DNN funding includes critical programs such as the nuclear smuggling and detection program, which works with partner countries to improve intelligence, law enforcement, and border security capabilities to detect nuclear material trafficking. It also supports programs to improve the security of radiological material around the world and to remove it from areas when nuclear materials cannot be adequately and safely secured. The Make America Secure Appropriations Act makes significant cuts to these programs which keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists and those who would then use that material to do us harm. For example, there is a 30 percent cut from the nuclear smuggling detection funding, a 79 percent cut from the highly enriched uranium reduction programs, and, overall, a $150 million cut to this program. At the same time, the underlying legislation would increase by 38 percent, a plus-up above what the administration recommended for the weapons activities infrastructure recapitalization budget line. This increase was not requested by the administration and is not supported by the Senate. The underlying bill already includes a $59 million increase in infrastructure recapitalization spending and a $71 million increase over the fiscal year 2017-enacted level for maintenance and repair facilities. We can go on and on. We have heard discussions here already about the trillion-dollar-plus expansion of the nuclear weapons programs. Specifically, this money that I would move out of this particular infrastructure recapitalization account is for the construction of a new facility to build nuclear plutonium pits. These pits are presumably going to be needed for a weapon that is almost certainly not going to be built, which is the interoperable new bomb. The interoperable weapon is to go on existing and remodeled rockets for the Navy and for the Air Force, neither of whom thinks it is a particularly good idea. So that program, should it ever come to pass, could be delayed, and we could then use this $118 million now to deal with a known problem. If, in the future, we decide that we need to be able to produce somewhere between 30 and 80 new pits a year, there is time enough to do that. The account that calls for the maintenance of the existing facilities will provide sufficient funds to meet all of the known needs, with the exception of the interoperable nuclear weapon, which, in all probability, is not ever going to be built or needed. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank Mr. Tonko so very much, once again, from the East Coast and the West Coast, I hope, to a message that America has listened to. I just looked out here in the audience and I noticed that our colleague from Texas is here to speak. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Jackson Lee very much for her comments. Indeed, we do look for a better deal, better jobs, better wages, better education. That is our goal, and we can do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank Mr. Tonko so very much for his comments. He covered the issues very well. I want to go to two issues really quickly that need to, I think, be wrapped up here. First of all, the President talks about the Affordable Care Act dying, and it is not going to make it. That could happen because of actions that he is specifically telling the administration to take. There are three different areas, one of which is being very late in providing the cost-sharing funding programs for those people who are purchasing insurance. It is discretionary right now. We ought to make that mandatory and not given the President the option of not providing those funds. If those funds are not provided, then, yes, the exchanges will collapse. Secondly, we know that there is the cross subsidization from one insurance company to another called reinsurance that tries to balance out the risk pool of each individual insurance company. Some insurance companies, for many different reasons, wind up with a very high risk, high cost population. Others are able to have a very low risk. The risk needs to be balanced out between those two. If that is not done, then there will be a death spiral amongst the insurance companies. Thirdly, under the Affordable Care Act, people are mandated to buy insurance or else pay a penalty. That penalty is enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, which has been specifically given instructions by the President not to enforce the law. That will lead to those young and healthy invincibles not buying insurance because there is no penalty. That will cause the insurance pool to become more risky and, again, start that death spiral that is so much talked about. The death spiral can be avoided, and the Affordable Care Act is drafted and written in such a way as to avoid it. So my plea to the President is: Use the law. Do not cause the Affordable Care Act to collapse. Mr. Speaker, please pass on to the President that the President has within his power to maintain the Affordable Care Act. He also has within his power to cause the Affordable Care Act to collapse. Now, the final point--and help me with this, Mr. Tonko--is that the Democrats have known for 5 years that there are improvements that need to take place within the Affordable Care Act, and we have pleaded with our Republican colleagues to allow those improvements to take place. We have had a deaf ear from our Republican colleagues. So as we go into this possible crisis, let it be known that the Democrats are seeking improvements in a variety of areas. We heard about the drug prices. I know, Mr. Tonko, you were talking in your earlier presentation about some of the improvements that can be made. So jump in here. Interrupt me, if you will.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, America has been enlightened by the gentlewoman's very forthright statement. The voice of New Mexico has been heard here on the House floor, Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that message from New Mexico and what it means with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Thank you so very much for doing that, a very powerful statement, a very powerful voice on behalf of New Mexicans and Americans. Somewhere between New Mexico and New York lies the State of Ohio, and, Ms. Kaptur, you have represented that State so very well for a few years here. We won't say exactly how many years. But over those years, you have always been the voice for the working men and women of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow along on my Republican colleagues, as they were talking about rural America. As a son of rural America, I agree with much of what they said about the role of the Federal Government in providing support in so many different ways to rural America. Many of the programs that they were talking about are really found in the effort of the U.S. Government to rebuild rural America following or during the days of the Great Depression. Mr. Speaker, I want to put up here on my easel one of the key documents. This is actually etched in the marble at the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial here in Washington, D.C. I think it is instructive as we talk about rural America and what is going on in rural America today, and really across all of America. During the height of the Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said these words: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' During those days of the Depression, rural America was hurting, it was devastated, and many of the programs that we just heard about from our Republican colleagues were put in place at that time. In 2010, the Congress of the United States, together with President Obama, put in place another program that significantly helped rural America. Today--in fact, just a couple of hours ago--the United States Senate moved to remove from rural America the pillar of healthcare that has provided millions of those 46 million Americans in rural America with healthcare. Through the expansion of the Medicaid program, the Medi-Cal program in California, many of my constituents in rural America were able to get healthcare for the first time, and they were also able to get insurance because of the cost share reduction program where their insurance premiums on the exchanges were reduced to a level that they could afford. A significant program for rural America is now in jeopardy as a result of the Congress of the United States passing legislation a couple of months ago that would repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with whole cloth, ripping apart the Medicaid Expansion program so that across this Nation some 16 million Americans would lose their Medicaid coverage immediately, and more beyond that. So in the initial year, 2018, 10 million Americans, many of them in rural America, would lose their health coverage. Across this Nation in the out-years, by 2025, 24 million Americans would lose their health coverage as a result of the actions of the Republicans here in Congress. Today, just a couple of hours ago, the Senate decided to move forward to make it even worse, to repeal and maybe not even replace, so that 32 million people would lose their coverage if that were to happen. Eighteen million in 2018 and 2019 would lose their health coverage under the program that was proposed by the U.S. Senate last week. Unbelievable that, here on the floor, we heard a discussion about rural America and the needs of rural America. I am here to tell you, as the son of rural America, I grew up on a ranch 2 miles from a community that had 500 people in it, that had a three-room schoolhouse and just five of us in the eighth grade class. I have raised my children in a community twice as large, a thousand people in rural America, and I know that the people in my community today depend upon the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, for the healthcare coverage that they now have. In California, over 5 million Californians gained coverage. The uninsured rate dropped by 50 percent, from 18 to just over 9 percent. Why? Why on Earth would we neglect this, these statements, this moral imperative set down by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is not what we are going to do for the wealthy. And keep this in mind, that the legislation that passed this House and repeated over in the Senate would be the largest transfer of wealth of any legislation ever--ever--by the Congress of the United States, transferring more than a trillion dollars from the men and women who have been able to gain coverage in their healthcare. This is real money taken out of their pockets as these programs disappear because of the repeal and the replacement: a trillion dollars taken from the working men and women and the poor in America and transferred to the wealthy. That is what the legislation did that passed this House; that is what is being considered in the Senate at this moment: a monumental transfer of wealth, the largest transfer of wealth in any single piece of legislation. How can it be, if this is the test, not what we are doing for the wealthy, not for those who have much, but, rather, for those in rural America and urban America who have so little? America ought to be upset. America ought to be outraged at what is happening today. We need to build America. We need a better America. We need better jobs. We need better wages. We need better healthcare, better education. That is what we need, but where is this Congress going? It is going in exactly the opposite direction. It is taking money out of the pockets of Americans, rural and urban and everybody in between, transferring a trillion dollars from their pockets to the superwealthy. Who are they? Five members, including the President, in the Cabinet of the United States are among the superwealthy, the 400 wealthiest families in America. They are there in the Cabinet, in the President's office. What do they stand to gain? A $4 million, $5 million, $6 million, $7 million reduction in their taxes. What do the working men and women of America stand to gain? Their healthcare is going to be taken away from them, not just in the reduction of the cost sharing, but also in the fact that, as we know it today, the insurance market itself will be so destabilized, so destabilized by the proposed action of the Senate and the House, that it will really enter a death spiral, because the proposed laws allow the healthy to opt out, and those who need insurance would continue to try to get their insurance in an ever-increasing market of people who have high health expenses. That is called a death spiral. I know this. I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years, and we fought all those 8 years, from 1991 until I left that office in 2006, we fought to try to put in place laws that are now in place as a result of ObamaCare. The insurance companies cannot discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. The fact that you are a woman, the fact that you are older, they cannot discriminate. But the bill that is now being debated in the Senate and will be back here in the House allows for a return to those days of discrimination. So if you happen to need healthcare, if you happen to have a preexisting condition, if you happen to have high blood pressure, diabetes, or you happen to be 60 years or 50 years of age, you will be hit with a heavy increase in your premiums, perhaps two- to threefold increases. That is what they are promising Americans. We can't let it happen. And interestingly enough, America is pushing back. They say: No more. No more. What we want is better healthcare. We don't want to lose our healthcare policy. What we want is better education. We want you in Congress to work on the education systems, on the skills that my children need, your children need to be able to get a decent job. Americans want higher wages. They don't want their healthcare ripped away as is happening here. They want us to focus on infrastructure. They want us to focus on the well-paying jobs that occur from infrastructure. Better jobs, better wages, better healthcare, better education--that is where we are going. And by God, we are going to protect the Affordable Care Act and we are going to stand with Americans. We are going to stand with Americans all across this Nation that say: No, we are not going to let it happen. Mr. Trump, I know that you promised a repeal, but you are wrong, Mr. President, you are wrong. Mr. Speaker, I pass that message on to the President. You should not take away from working men and women who, for the first time, are able to get their healthcare and are able to afford the private sector market or are able to get on the Medicaid programs. You should not take it away so that you can give, to the superwealthy, a trillion dollars. It is outrageous. I need to take a deep breath. I am a bit riled up. I am a bit riled up when I hear my colleagues come in and talk about rural America, where I know, from my experience in my district, there is an opioid epidemic and methamphetamines, and I know that those people are dependent upon the Medicaid program that they intend to rip away. Okay. Calm down, John. Don't get too excited. Don't get too mad. Take a deep breath and turn it over to my colleague from the East Coast. Congressman Tonko, you and I have been on this floor many times talking about making it in America, about jobs, about making it better for education. Give me a chance to take a deep breath.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Kaptur, thank you for your comments. For years you have been the strong voice of working men and women in the State of Ohio. Thank you for bringing us the message from mid-America. Also, in your wrap-up, you began to talk about the issue of prevention. One of things that the Affordable Care Act does so very well--ObamaCare, if you will--is prevention, particularly for seniors. There is a free annual healthcare checkup for seniors as a result of the Affordable Care Act. When seniors get that healthcare checkup, they also are able to understand that they have high blood pressure, incipient diabetes or other illnesses that ultimately, as Ms. Kaptur so correctly pointed out, become extraordinarily expensive if they are not treated. One other fact is that the Medicaid program in America, more than 50 percent of the total expenses in the Medicaid program are for men and women who are in the nursing homes. We are not just talking about families and children. We are talking about the elderly that are being cared for in nursing homes. Now, the result of the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the reduction of the Medicaid expenditure is that those men and women who are in the nursing homes will no longer have the support to keep them in a nursing home. So what comes of those men and women? What happens to them if they are no longer able to have care in a nursing home? Just let that question hang there because it is a question that our Republican colleagues and the Senate must answer, because the repeal and replace legislation or repeal legislation and wait legislation goes right to the heart of the Medicaid program and the support that enables those seniors in nursing homes to receive that service. In addition to that, what comes of the Medicare program? We know that the Medicare program solvency was significantly increased to about 15 years. It is not going to go bankrupt in the near term as was predicted before the Affordable Care Act but, rather, extended into the out- years. So the solvency of the Medicare program would be reduced, and the free medical checkups, we are not sure whether they would be able to continue or not. So it is not just men and women who are not yet 65 years of age, but it is men and women who are 65 that would see significant pressure on the services that they now receive, and quite probably reductions in the services that they would receive both in the Medicare as well as in the Medicaid program. Mr. Tonko, why don't we chat for a few moments back and forth here. You in New York, you are faced with the same problems that my constituents in California would be faced with, and that is a repeal seriously hurts people, I mean, physically hurts them. They will not be able to get the medical services that they currently have. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York. The view from the great State of New York and the State of California, somewhere in between those two States lies the State of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) to share with us the view from the great State of New Mexico.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. In its current form, I am.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have something very, very special for us in the next 3 minutes. This is an opportunity for us to vote on something everybody in this Chamber wants. That is right. Everybody in this Chamber wants American jobs, they want American manufacturing to succeed, and they want American--how should we put this?--made in America, right? Manufactured in America, right? Yes, that is it. Let me read to you this amendment, which, if accepted, would not stop this bill from passing, which I suspect it will, whether this is accepted or not. But here is your chance, colleagues. This amendment reads: ``The road and road corridor described in section (4)(b) shall be constructed using only materials and equipment manufactured in the United States.'' Who is opposed to that? Who is opposed to that? Surely, my colleagues on the left and the right want to have American equipment used in manufacturing this road or any other road, any other pipeline, or any other infrastructure project. This is what we all want, all of us. This amendment is about as simple as it could be, and it is about as important as we would find on any of the amendments. I am not going to do a gotcha thing today. All too often these MTRs are simply gotcha votes. I am not going to do that to you today. But I want all of us to consider the art of the possible. Consider for a moment the art of the possible, that we could come together and we could amend this piece of legislation and other pieces of legislation that will be coming to us on infrastructure and roads and highways and water, and we could put into each and every one of those a very simple sentence that says they will be built with American equipment, American labor, and American materials. That is it. I know my Republican colleagues want it as much as my Democratic colleagues, although you are shy and you are not willing to shout up in support. But I will tell you what I will give you the opportunity to do. I am aware of that talk as much as any of you are, and here is my promise to my Republicans colleagues and to my Democratic colleagues. Give us a resounding ``yes'' so that the very clear ear of our Speaker can hear a ``yes'' vote from all of us, and let's go home. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.