John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I join Chairman Hunter in strong support for the legislation and to advance this new policy initiative to improve the oversight of the Coast Guard and the major acquisition programs, and also to advance the safety and security of the U.S. maritime industry. H.R. 5978, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Amendments Act, is bipartisan legislation. We have talked about some of the provisions that are not in the bill. I will try to talk about those that are in the bill. It deserves the robust support from Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its quick passage, probably as early as today. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Hunter, for his unwavering support of the Coast Guard and the work that we are able to do together with the members of the committee. Of great significance, this legislation will address an overlooked and underappreciated threat to our national and economic security: the fact that GPS, Global Positioning System, it has been identified for nearly 20 years as the single point of failure, with serious implications for our national security and economy. I know we are not able to use these little machines called cell phones on the floor, but if we could, they are totally reliant on GPS. You go down to the ATM, it will not work without GPS. Our systems of navigation, including such things as positive train control, totally dependent upon GPS. In fact, Wall Street, totally dependent on GPS. It is timing, navigation, and positioning. That is GPS. We have no backup; other countries do. You might ask, why is China, why is Russia, why are they building a GLAN-based backup to GPS? Well, they know that if there is trouble, the first thing that is going to disappear is GPS. Right now, GPS can be knocked out by somebody driving down the freeway with their 18-wheeler and using an antiradar device. You might ask what happened at the Newark airport. That is exactly what happened. GPS was knocked out by somebody on Interstate 95 with a radar device. It is a very weak signal, but it is an extraordinarily important signal. So this bill provides for a backup system which has been discussed for nearly 20 years, and we have gone round and round the Bush--I guess that is the right thing--and the Clinton, in between, without any action. So this bill would actually push this forward to give us an opportunity to establish a backup system, which is actually very old but will be updated with the enhanced LORAN system, dating back to the 1940s, which was the first navigational system that we built in the United States. Much of the system is already available; the towers, the locations, much of that is in place. This would authorize a public-private partnership to put that in place. I won't go into it anymore, but it is high time that we get on with this. The chairman laid out how it is going to be done in his talk and, hopefully, we can finally get this underway. There are many, many other pieces that are in this legislation. We have talked a little bit about the Coast Guard icebreakers. We do have a study--oh, my goodness, another study. It is the best we could do at the moment. The chairman and I talked about what we would like to accomplish with more than that with his actual authorization. The block buy, we have got to do it, and, hopefully, we will. There are other things that are in the bill that the chairman has described. I won't go into them today in any more detail but to say that, in my written statement, it will be covered. One more thing, to back up the GPS, I include in the Record about 15 years of studies by Federal Government agencies that all say we have got to have a backup system, and the eLORAN is the best. Mr. Chairman, shall we continue on and beat this for a while longer or shall we say let's pass the bill and get on with it? I am pleased to rise and join Chairman Hunter in strong support of this legislation to advance new policy initiatives to improve the oversight of the Coast Guard's major acquisition programs and to advance the safety and security of the U.S. maritime industry. H.R. 5978, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Amendments Act of 2016, is bipartisan legislation that was developed to address issues that have arisen since the Congress passed a two-year comprehensive Coast Guard authorization bill earlier this year. This legislation is deserving of robust support from members on both sides of the aisle and I urge its quick passage by the House today so it can be sent to the other body for its consideration and passage before the 114th Congress adjourns sine die. I want to thank Chairman Hunter for his unwavering leadership and for the cooperative spirit of this excellent staff in working with me and other Democratic members to address our interests and concerns in this legislation. Of greatest significance, this legislation will address an overlooked need and under-appreciated threat to our national and economic security--the fact that the Global Positioning System, or GPS, has been identified as a single point of failure with serious implications for our national security and economy. GPS has revolutionized how we live, work, and play. Signals provided by GPS satellites ensure that literally everything that we routinely depend on not only runs, but runs with unprecedented reliability and precision. We have all benefitted from GPS: whether through the distribution of power from our electric grid; the coordination of timing signals for trains and traffic signals; or, to improve the efficiency of maritime search and rescue missions launched by the Coast Guard. There is no denying that GPS has been a tremendous technological asset. But the reality is that GPS signals are relatively weak and fairly easy to degrade, disrupt or jam. This is not a hypothetical matter; this threat is real, and it is happening now. Just last week, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Paul Zukunft, while speaking at a National Harbor Safety Conference in Portland, Oregon, cited over 100 instances in which vessels experienced disruption to their GPS reception. There is nothing we can do to change the underlying physics of the GPS signal. We can, however, take necessary and appropriate actions now to ensure that a reliable land-based back-up system for positioning, navigation and timing signals is available when needed. Moreover, if the Russians, the Chinese, the EU, and other nations are developing land-based GPS back-up systems, the United States should have its own system as well. Since 2001 the Federal Government, notably the PNT Executive Committee, has been evaluating options. The Executive Committee concluded in December, 2014 that an enhanced LORAN, or eLORAN system, would be the most cost-effective and reliable back-up for GPS signals. What this legislation will do is force the Federal Government to finally take action on its own recommendation. The Coast Guard, which for decades operated the LORAN-C navigation system (the predecessor of GPS), would be directed to publish a request for proposals, complete a plan for the architecture of an eLORAN system, and get a system built and fully operational within three years. Make no mistake, this is a significant undertaking. But the stakes of doing nothing is a risky roll of the dice we would be well-advised to avoid. I strongly urge members on both sides to support this important provision. I am also very pleased that this legislation continues to move forward in our efforts to recapitalize the Coast Guard's legacy fleet of polar class heavy icebreakers. It is clear that we are witnessing the opening of the Arctic to maritime commerce, and with it, the creation of a whole new ocean of operational responsibility for the Coast Guard. In this most challenging of maritime environments, it is vital that the Service has the icebreaking capabilities it will need to operate safely and effectively. I must express my disappointment that we were unable to retain the ``block buy'' provision that was reported out of the Transportation Committee. Nevertheless, the analysis of multi-year procurement and block buy contracting called for in this legislation would be helpful to have on hand when the Congress ultimately does appropriate funds for the construction of these vital new national security assets. I also want to express my support for other provisions in the bill, notably language that will ensure commercial fishermen a full three years to comply with new alternative safety compliance program requirements from the date the Coast Guard publishes these requirements. Additionally, I want to express my support for the provision that would grant to the Coast Guard authority to reimburse private entities for their costs to construct a Federal navigation aid. The additional sideboards that were added have clarified the scope and intent of this new authority. I want to thank Congressman Blake Farenthold for his willingness to work to improve this provision. Mr. Speaker, I again want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hunter and his staff for their support for the Coast Guard and the U.S. Maritime industry, and for their collaboration in developing this legislation. I also want to thank the Chairman of the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman Bill Shuster, and the Ranking Member on the full Committee, Congressman Peter DeFazio, for their leadership and support for the Committee's maritime agenda. In closing, this legislation is bipartisan and non-controversial. It deserves the full support of the House. NSPD-39: U.S. Space-Based Position, Navigation, and Timing Policy, December 15, 2004

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. GARAMENDI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for the opportunity to speak this evening. We have just been listening to a very lengthy discussion on the part of the healthcare issues in the United States, and, undoubtedly, the family or the small community pharmacist is a piece of the solution to the problems. But I want to spend the next 10 minutes or so, maybe a little longer, talking about a problem that currently affects some 19,000 Americans and a problem that is growing every day. This is the new four-letter word that we fear. We are accustomed to a lot of four-letter words, but this one begins with a Z. This is the Zika crisis. This is a very, very real problem for some 1,600 pregnant women in the United States. This is a problem that men and women that intend to have a family, women that intend to bear children, get pregnant in the days and months ahead have a gut feeling of fear--a deep, deep fear--and husbands, spouses, and lovers similarly. This is the Zika crisis. We have heard a lot about it during the Olympics. It hasn't passed off the radar screen except here in Congress. I know it is on the minds of Californians, over 500 in California, and nearly 15,500 Americans in Puerto Rico. They have that fear. They have Zika. So all across this Nation, this new four-letter word is not used as a cuss word. It is a word of fear, and it is a word of trouble. Apparently, in the Halls of your Capitol, in the Halls of the United States Congress, it is ignored. Several months ago, we did pass a piece of legislation that was supposed to deal with this. But understand this: The Centers for Disease Control is about to run out of money at the end of this month and will have to stop research on Zika, on the virus, on vaccines, and on how it is spread. We know that the mosquito is a piece of this, and we know it is prime mosquito time across much of the United States. Let me show you a map-- a lot of blue on that map. That doesn't mean Democrat. That means Zika. Where you see the bright blue, that is where the Zika mosquito--the aedes--is found, and this is where we presently have cases. South Florida, the only time in American history that there has been a travel alert for health reasons within the Continental United States is now found in south Florida. Why? Because now we have mosquitos that are spreading the virus. In other parts of the Nation, we know that this mosquito is present, and we know it is going to happen, if not this year then next year. This is not something that is going to go away in the next few months as winter approaches. It will come back next year, and it will come back with a greater vengeance, just as the West Nile virus that spread across the United States is now found in most every State. But that is not an illness that leads to the tragedy of children being born with severe injuries that will affect them the rest of their lives, which may be a very short life. This is a problem. This is a problem that your United States Congress is ignoring. There is a bill bouncing around, and it is loaded with a bunch of riders that are: What are you talking about? Riders that prevent women's health clinics from providing assistance to women. It is the women, after all, that bear the great burden of this. They are the ones that are going to be pregnant. They are the ones that will be carrying the children. But those women's health clinics cannot allow access to the money. What in the world is that all about? What foolishness. What meanness. By the way, none of the money can be used for contraception. Give me a break. What do you mean? That is the legislation that is being proposed here in the United States Congress. Even the Pope has suggested that because of this crisis in Brazil that the steadfast opposition of the Vatican to contraception may need to be pushed aside. But not here in the House of Representatives. Come on. Let's get real. Let's understand the nature of this crisis. The Zika virus is not transmitted only by mosquitos. We are discovering that the transmission can come in many, many different ways--many different ways. So what are we doing about it? Nothing. We are spending time talking about impeaching the IRS Commissioner. Come on. In the history of this Nation, only one person other than a President has been impeached, and that was back in the 1870s, a Secretary of War. An IRS Commissioner is not even a Cabinet member. We are spending our time on that. We are where, 20 days, a little less, from the end of the fiscal year when we have to fund government? We are less than what, 17 days away from the ability of the Centers for Disease Control to continue to research and to address this issue? Look at the map, Americans. Every State. And Puerto Rico is not on this map, and they are Americans. There are over 15,000 cases there and more than 1,000 women who are pregnant and many, many more who will become pregnant. So what is your United States Congress doing? Dithering would be an insufficient word to address this crisis. This is a public health crisis. This is a crisis that the solution presented to us a few months ago was to take money out of the Ebola program. Did we forget about Ebola? Did it go away? No, it did not. That money was being spent on monitoring the travelers from those areas of Africa where Ebola still exists. So that money is gone. So I suppose, in the next months or year ahead, we will go back into the Ebola problem once again. Money was taken from the public health programs in counties throughout the United States. The proposal that moved out of this House of Representatives swept from the counties and the States money that the public health departments in those areas needed to deal with public health emergencies, one of which was Zika. And there are other public health emergencies that are always before us. I mentioned the West Nile virus. California has a whooping cough problem that is ongoing, and that is a public health crisis. Children die of that. So what is the solution? Not what we normally do when we have a crisis, which is to go to the Federal Treasury and say: America has a problem. Americans will solve that problem or address that problem and try to deal with the effect of it by appropriating money so that we can address it. When the terrible floods occurred recently in Louisiana, did we raid other agencies to deal with it? No. We go to FEMA, and we go to the emergency funding, as we did with Katrina, as we did with Sandy, and as we do with the fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes. But not with Zika. Somehow Zika is different. If you are a grandmother or a grandfather and your granddaughter is about to get married, what is on your mind? The wedding to be sure. But you are also thinking about that pregnancy that might be following, and you are thinking: will my daughter or my granddaughter acquire the Zika virus? What will it mean? Apparently, that thought is not found in my fellow colleagues here on the floor of the House of Representatives, even though they have children, even though they have daughters and granddaughters, even though within their families there will be pregnancies. We have got to think about this. Maybe there are 16,000 affected in the United States today. But this virus is not going away. This virus is going to be with us years ahead, and the effects of it are going to be felt in the next generations. It is already here in the United States. We have had babies born with serious defects as a result of Zika. It is already with us. And there will be more. There will be many, many more. This public health crisis must be met by the full power of the Federal Government, just as we meet other crises. It is our responsibility. 535 of us and the President. The President has asked for $1.9 billion to deal with this health crisis. The response by my colleagues on the Republican side of the House of Representatives, a little over $6 million, most of which is stolen from other public health programs. Disgraceful. Dereliction of responsibility. The Senate is talking about a $1.1 billion program. Good. Without riders, without the kind of foolish riders that are being presented here. Good. Let's get on with it. We will take the Senate bill. Give us a clean Senate bill so that there is money available for the Centers for Disease Control to continue its research, so that there is money available for the public health programs in south Florida, in Texas, in Puerto Rico, California, and in other States to carry on the fight against the mosquitoes and to deal with the other methods of transmission, to warn the public, to prepare the public. We can do it. Anybody that knows how much money the Federal Government spends every year knows that $1 billion to address a fundamental public health crisis is available. It is readily available. We ought to get on with it. And shame on us if we don't. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you so very much for bringing up the Alzheimer's Accountability Act. The new money that goes into it, this additional 300-plus million dollars bringing it up to some $900 million a year is accountable. There are specific plans that are needed; there is a mechanism to prioritize the expenditures--all of those things. So it is not just money that is going to be thrown out there. I am also reminded that this issue is one that is a brain issue, obviously, but that is an issue that affects our soldiers who have got PTSD, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress syndrome, all of those things for our veterans who have come back, which, again, is an issue of the brain. If we are studying Alzheimer's, we will also be studying those issues. About 3 years ago now, in the National Defense Authorization Act, we enacted a provision that required the Department of Defense, as it goes about dealing with these terrible problems that the veterans have with post-traumatic stress or the other brain injuries, coordinate their work with other brain researchers. So we really need to understand that we have one mind, one human brain, and the research will go at it from different symptoms and different diseases, but it is still dealing with the brain. So the sharing of knowledge is a part of what this accountability act will bring forward to us. We have challenges. We have many, many challenges, and this issue of Alzheimer's that was in the omnibus bill last year and our Republican colleagues, our Democratic colleagues, all alike faced with this issue in their families and their communities, voted in support of this legislation. So this is not a partisan issue. This is a human issue and an American issue. It is one that we can deal with, and we really do have the money to do it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The early onset.

Mr. GARAMENDI. As you talk about partnerships, I'm thinking about many of the partnerships that do exist already and those that could exist. This brain research, Alzheimer's, and other brain issues are researched around the world. There is an organization that I am familiar with in California that one of our friends from the Napa Valley started, a program called the One Mind Institute. Our former colleague, Mr. Kennedy, is part of that organization. We have one human brain, and if we could pull together the research from all around the United States and all around the world so that there is a sharing of information, perhaps we will get to some knowledge much, much faster. So I am really heartened by the effort that the Congress has made thus far to almost double the research for Alzheimer's. I look forward in this month of September as we put together our appropriations, which hopefully we will, or even a continuing resolution, that we would keep in mind that this is an area where money could be well spent. We make choices here in Congress, and I just want to lay out, as I prepare to close, and then if you would also, Mr. Tonko, among the choices we make is one that I deal with on my committee assignments. I am on the House Armed Services Committee, and I am on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. Strategic arms mean nuclear weapons. I just am troubled--deeply, deeply troubled--by what we are in the process of doing here in the United States as well as Russia, China, and perhaps other places around the world in rebuilding our entire nuclear arsenal. If you take all of the various things that are involved in that nuclear arsenal--the rockets, the bombs, the submarines, the airplanes, and all the command and control systems--in the next 20 years, 25 years, we will spend $1 trillion--$1 trillion--on that whole system. I just often think what if we were to spend just a small portion of that, maybe $1 billion a year or $2 billion a year of the $1 trillion on brain research, what would it mean to American families? What would it mean to families around the world? There is not going to be a family in this world that doesn't suffer from this Alzheimer's thing if they live long enough. So we make choices here, and I wrestle with those choices. But in this particular case, the choice is clear. I prefer to spend some portion of that money on this Alzheimer's issue and on the students and, therefore, on the very important future of this Nation. That would be my choice, and hopefully our colleagues and the American public would see the wisdom of that. Mr. Tonko, would you like to close?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), my friend and colleague, for the passion and commitment he has to his people and to the American people and beyond. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, as I was flying to Washington from California today, I recalled conversations I had over the weekend with a group of students who are headed back to school at the universities in California and other parts of the Nation. To an individual, I asked them: ``How are you financing it? What are you going to do? Are your parents taking care of you; your grandparents?'' In some cases, they said: ``Well, they are helping a little bit, but I am going to do this with a student loan.'' All across this Nation, young men and women and maybe some that are not so young are going back to school to continue their education, to begin it, and, in some cases, learn new skills, and they are taking out student loans. This is an incredible, incredible way in which we have now begun the financing of our higher education system. What does it amount to? Well, let me show you what it amounts to. It amounts to a whopping amount of debt. Among Americans, no other loan program exceeds the amount of student debt, except for home mortgages. It is well over a trillion dollars in 2014, and probably approaching a trillion and a quarter dollars. It is a burden on not just current students, but students from yesterday and from the decades before, still carrying that burden of debt, unable to begin what used to be the normal process of a family, a car, a house, participating in the economic activities of America. But, rather, they are burdened by an extraordinary debt. And here we are in Congress, really not even paying attention to this fundamental American issue. It is an economic issue for the large economy. It is macroeconomic. It is also very, very much a personal issue. Is there one of you out there in America that doesn't have a son, a daughter, or maybe even yourself that is burdened by this student debt? You are paying interest rates that are 5, 6, 7, 8 percent and you are wondering why, if you are able to refinance your home, why you are not able to refinance your student debt. That is a reasonable question and one that I asked my staff and others: Why can't we refinance this student debt? After all, the Federal Government is able to borrow money for 10 years at less than 2 percent. Why don't we refinance those loans--that trillion dollars--and bring it down from 5, 6, 7, 8 percent, down to, let's say, 2 percent, plus 1 percent for the processing costs? We could do it. It is feasible. It is possible. Oh, but it is going to cost the government. Well, yes. Right now, the government is earning a profit on the backs of those students. Over $200 billion of profit will flow into the Federal Government because we, the American public, through the inaction of Congress, are burdening the students of America today and in the past with this incredible amount of debt. So let's refinance it. Here are some astonishing facts that you may not know. It is $1.2 trillion--actually, more--second only to the mortgage debt. The number of borrowers on the average balance increased by 70 percent between 2004 and 2012. In other words, mostly every student is taking out loans. The average student loan debt for graduates of 2015 is $35,051, a burden that they will carry for many, many years. There are solutions, one of which several of us in Congress and the Senate have proposed, somewhat different versions, but they all amount to refinancing your student debt on current students who are borrowing as well as those in the past that have taken out loans. We can refinance it. Take a look here. My particular legislation would set all student loan interest rates at 3.23 percent. Actually, that was based on the 10-year cost of a Federal bond about a year ago. So it is a little less today. Save low-income borrowers thousands by delaying the interest while they are actually in school. Right now, that interest rate will continue to accrue. I was talking to a person on the airplane today. They said: ``Well, I am going to go back to school, but I can't continue to pay off my loan just because I get a hiatus.'' I said: ``Whoa, whoa. Yes, while you are in school, you don't have to pay, but that interest clock continues to tick along the way.'' So this legislation would say that if you are continuing your education, the interest clock stops. Also, we want to make sure that the average student can save a lot of money. It amounts to over $2,000 through the life of the loan. By the way, why does the Federal Government currently cause a cost here called the origination fee? I know if you go borrow money or refinance your mortgage, there is a fee. But why would the Federal Government charge a fee for the origination of a loan? Students go down to the student loan office at the university and they take out the loan. The cost to the Federal Government is part of that over $200 billion profit that the Federal Government has. Anyway, we have an opportunity here to address this issue. Now that everybody is focused on this, let's see what we can do. Changes to the student loan interest rates, we talked about this. If you are a graduate student, it is over 6 percent and so forth. We can bring it down to less than 3 percent based upon today's rates. There are other people that are involved in this effort to try to deal with the cost of education here in the United States. I want to introduce to you a friend of mine who is often on the floor as we do our East-West show, Paul Tonko from the State of New York. I know that he is faced with this issue in his district, as I am in mine. I represent the University of California, Davis and four different community college campuses, all of which have this problem. If he would share with us his situation in New York and what he faces in his district.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am so pleased that you brought up this issue of entrepreneurs. I know you often talk about this as something that is very important to you personally and the work that you have done before you came to Congress in New York State with the entrepreneurial activities of that State. But I also note that Secretary Clinton, who was a Senator from New York, perhaps had listened to you during those years, and is carrying in her proposal a very special program for entrepreneurs. I am thinking about a group that I met with in Davis, California, this last year, a group that actually nourishes students that are wanting to start a business. And as you said, coming out of the science or out of the technology or other areas, they come upon an idea where they want to grow a business. Well, Secretary Clinton has loan forgiveness as part of her education package that would forgive $17,500 of their student loans when they begin that business. When they become entrepreneurs and it begins to operate, there is this loan forgiveness. So suddenly they go into a program where they are $17,500 less debt on their balance sheet. An enormous act, an enormous piece of advantage. I am also thinking about--this is not directly to the entrepreneurs, but to home buyers. That student loan prevents people from buying a home because it shows up on their balance sheet and they are not able to get on with it. I really like what Secretary Clinton is proposing here because it goes along with what you and I and many of our colleagues see as an impediment to economic growth and individual growth in our Nation.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly. We have been talking about students, some of whom are young, some not so young, and others who are carrying those student loans. But if you begin to look at the totality of society, and if we care about each other and about what is happening in our communities, we come to the more senior years, and immediately we find that seniors are faced with a host of issues. One of the issues--and I am glad you brought this up--is Alzheimer's and dementia. Let me show you something that we developed here. This is a graph of the cost of Alzheimer's in our society. It is growing very, very rapidly. You can see right now we are spending somewhere around $236 billion a year on it. And as the population ages, which is part of the baby boom, and the fact that we are all going to get older, we figure by 2050 that we will be spending $1.3 trillion a year to deal with Alzheimer's. It is an extraordinary burden and it is probably one that will bust the bank, the Medicare bank, and the Medicaid bank. We know that these costs are shared largely by the Federal Government and by individuals and families. In my own family, my mother-in-law was a victim of Alzheimer's, and she spent her last 3 years of her life in our home and we were able to care for her, but that is unusual. For most families, it is a burden that cannot be afforded, so that cost then comes to the Medicare and the Medicaid program. In fact, the single biggest expense in Medicaid is dementia and Alzheimer's. This is one where we are faced with an enormous challenge, but it is a challenge that actually may have a solution. Let me put up another chart here before we get to that issue of how to deal with this. This is one that deals with--the cost of caring for seniors with Alzheimer's will increase nearly fivefold by 2050, and here we have broken down the cost, Medicare and Medicaid, $1.1 trillion in 2050 and the extraordinary rise. But the burden for the Federal Government becomes awesome and, frankly, probably unaffordable. Can we do something about it? I think so. And this takes us back to what we were talking about earlier, about the universities and about research. Let me just put this up very quickly. What happens when we invest in research? Well, let's take a look at what we do invest in research. We know, for example, that for cancer we are investing about--Federal government dollars now--$5.5 billion a year for cancer research. This is through the National Institute of Health. For HIV/AIDS, somewhere near almost $3 billion a year. For cardiovascular problems, a little over $2 billion a year. For Alzheimer's, it is now about $900 million a year. So we were able this last year--in 2015-16 budget year, we were able to increase from $560 million to just under $1 billion. So we have ramped up. We thank President Obama for putting that in his budget, and for all of our colleagues, Democrat and Republican, for approving that additional funding for research. But what does research mean? What does it mean when we actually research these illnesses? It is incredible. One very quick chart here will show you what happens when we invest in research. I know, Mr. Tonko, this is a big issue in your district. It is a big issue--not just the illness, but the research, because New York is one of the great research centers. Deaths from major diseases, 2000 to 2013. So what has happened with breast cancer? We have seen a small decline in breast cancer deaths. Prostate cancer, we have seen an 11 percent decline in prostate cancer deaths; heart disease, 14 percent decline; for strokes, 23 percent decline; for HIV/AIDS, a 52 percent decline. What is that decline a result of? Obviously, better medical care, but also research. So what has happened with Alzheimer's? Remember that we were investing basically at one-tenth of what we invest in cancer and one- fourth of what we invest in heart disease. For Alzheimer's disease, we have seen a 71 percent increase--not a decrease in the number of deaths but, rather, an increase in the number of deaths. So as we ramp up the research, will we be able to see this kind of reduction in deaths? Well, we would hope so. But what we do know is that if we are able to delay the onset of this terrible illness, quality of life will be better, and the cost to the public and to families will decline. I know, Mr. Tonko, that in your area, while your family may not have been directly affected by Alzheimer's, I know that you are seriously interested in it because you see it in your community as I do in mine.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Wow. 80 percent of American families would be able to send their kids to school without tuition costs.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the gentleman from New York with whom we have often on the floor talked about many, many issues, including making it in America and building a strong economy here. But a strong economy really depends upon the individuals that work in that economy, and if they are saddled with student debt, they are not able to really explore and really carry out all of their potential. So what we want to do is to address this issue. You mentioned the Presidential campaigns, and Secretary Clinton, she actually has a very strong and robust and fulsome program dealing with the cost of education. She does have an additional item beyond the debt issues, which you very well explained that she wants to pursue. She also has a program in place where all families who earn initially less than $85,000 a year would be able to go to a State university, public university in their State, at no cost, and that would then grow to $125,000 in the next 4 years. That is really extraordinary. That is pretty much like it was when I went to school a few decades ago and the University of California was literally free. We had a couple of--I don't know--$125 for the Student Union and some athletic programs, but it was tuition-free. Those are bygone days. But Secretary Clinton believes--and I think she is correct--that it is possible for the Federal Government to institute programs that would make higher education free for those families that earn initially less than $85,000, and then growing to less than $125,000. What an enormous boom that would be to the economy. So I am excited. I am excited about the potential here in the House of Representatives. Peter Welch, our colleague from Vermont, has introduced a bill that is identical to Senator Warren's over in the Senate, and they have a refinancing bill, similar to my bill. My bill goes a little bit further because we not only lower the cost of current students' loans, but we go to those loans that are on the books. So we can deal with this. We have the ability and the economic strength in this Nation to deal with it. I know you may have some additional comments on that, but my mind, as we were talking here and I was thinking about this Special Order hour, went to the young and the not-so-young that have student loans, but also to those that are now in their more senior years and the issues that they face in their senior years. So perhaps we can shift to that, unless you have some additional things on student loans.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Tahoe Environmental Research Center, or TERC, at the University of California Davis on its 10th anniversary. For the past decade, TERC has been a global leader in research, education and public outreach about the Lake Tahoe Basin and other similar systems across the world. Their work has never been more urgent: Lake Tahoe is one of the most famous destinations in the United States, and draws millions of visitors from around the world for hiking, water sports, skiing, and so many other recreational activities. But increased development and a higher number of residents and tourists have damaged the environment of the Tahoe Basin and sharply reduced Lake Tahoe's world-renowned clarity. In fact, the lake has lost a third of its transparency over the past 30 years. The University of California at Davis, whose campus is situated in my Congressional District, is no stranger to studying Lake Tahoe: 58 years ago, UC Davis pioneered conducting scientific research at Lake Tahoe, and was the first institution to sound the alarm about the damage being done to the Tahoe Basin's sensitive ecosystem. The work done by UC Davis and the Tahoe Environmental Research Center has been essential to keeping Tahoe blue. Congratulations to the TERC on its 10th anniversary and all the work it has done to preserve the natural beauty and ecological diversity of the Tahoe Basin.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank the minority leader. I am delighted to have the gentlewoman's leadership on this issue. It is profoundly important. I understand tomorrow, at 10 o'clock, 91 people will be outside, together with many members of our caucus, to demonstrate that each day 91 people are killed by guns here in the United States. So we have work to do. It is very simple. All we are asking for is a vote on a no fly, no buy bill that actually works--not the Cornyn bill, not the Republican bill, but one that actually works, put together by Mr. King of New York and Mr. Thompson of California--and also a bill that deals with expanding the background check. Put them on the floor, Mr. Speaker. And one more, I promise, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to go away until the American public has the safe gun measures written into law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago on this floor, the Democrats said: We want a vote. We want a vote on a bill that would prohibit terrorists who are on the no-fly list from being able to buy a gun and explosives, and we want a vote on comprehensive background checks. So we sat down and created a bit of confusion and maybe even some anger. I am pleased that the Speaker has decided that maybe there will be some piece of legislation, a piece of legislation, H.R. 5611. Unfortunately, it doesn't even come close to solving the problem and probably makes it worse. It is written in such a way that it is virtually unenforceable, will guarantee that terrorists will be given a heads-up that they are being looked at and investigated by the FBI, and it puts the courts in an impossible situation where they have to find probable cause that there is a terrorist out there who has done something bad or is likely to do something bad, in which case just go arrest them. You don't need to do more than that. You already have probable cause. Arrest them. The bill is a nonstarter, so we are not going to go away. We are going to stay at this until we have decent legislation. There are two pieces: a bill by Mr. King of New York, a Republican, and the same, coauthored by Mr. Thompson of California, that would expand the background checks, which is absolutely essential; and also one that provides for no fly, no buy. We would like to have a vote on the bills. Put them on the floor, Mr. Speaker. You can do this. Put your bill on the floor, put our two bills on the floor, and let us, the 435 Representatives, speak to this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the minority leader.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 100th anniversary of Farm Credit organizations here in the United States. Over the last century, these organizations have provided critical funding for new farmers, farmers who have been in business, and families for many, many years. I know that in my own family situation, my father was on the board of directors of the Land Bank in Stockton, California. When my wife and I wanted to start our own ranch, for the first 2 years, we relied upon the Farm Credit associations. And so it is all across America, as farmers try to continue their business to provide the food for our Nation and around the world, the Farm Credit organizations are there to make sure that the money is available for the operations of those farms and ranches.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chair, when I took my oath of office, the Speaker handed me this Constitution. Here, in Article I, it reads that it is the Congress of the United States that declares war or not. Yet, as my friend from California said so eloquently, days and days and years have gone by that the Congress of the United States has abdicated its fundamental responsibility. Perhaps the most awesome and important of our responsibilities is to send our men and women onto the battlefield. Yet we have not done it. The esteemed chairman of the Appropriations Committee said that this is too important an issue to be in an appropriations bill. I could not disagree more. The appropriations bill is about war, and there are billions and billions of dollars in this appropriations bill to conduct a war that is not authorized by Congress. It seems to me to be absolutely essential that we take up our responsibility--that we define what it is we want to accomplish in Syria and Iraq and that we put aside the old authorizations that are now 15 years old and that are, clearly, not only out of date, but are inappropriate for what we are doing in the Middle East. It is our responsibility. The Constitution of the United States says it is. There are 535 of us who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and we have failed.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor to pick up on an issue that concerns most every American that has gone to college, who is now in school, or beyond. I remember a day 3 weeks ago at the Calaveras County Fair. The security guard at the gate greeted me. He said: Congressman. I said: Yes. He said: I need your help. I said: What can I do for you? He said: Well, I had to go back to school to get the license and the education for this job. I now run the security program here. I will be over 70 years of age before I am able to pay off my student loan. He was probably in his early fifties at that time. I said: How can that be? He said: The interest rate is killing me. And, indeed, not only killing him, but all across this Nation, the issue of student debt is harming families, holding back the formation of families--not getting married because you have to pay off the debt, and who would want to marry that person with all that debt? I don't think so--buying houses, getting a car, carrying on in your life. Student debt is an incredible burden on the American public. And not just the students but, in many cases, the parents of students. Here is what has happened with student debt: It is now over $2.2 trillion. Probably today it is much larger than the debt on credit cards. The growth has been almost exponential. And we are continuing to see this rise. It is not over. Continuing the debt is part of America's reality. Here are some astonishing facts about student debt: Not only is it $1.2 trillion, but it is continuing to increase at $2,726.27 every second. So we are going to see this go way beyond $1.2 trillion to, and probably approaching, nearly $1.5 trillion by the end of this decade. The number of borrowers and the average balance of their debt has grown by 70 percent between 2004 and 2012. That is more than 7 percent per year. And finally, down here, we can say that the average student loan debt for graduate students is now over $35,000 per student. This is an extraordinary burden. Now, tell me, what family in America has not refinanced their home? I think we all have. Certainly, Patti and I have refinanced our home. And I suspect most Americans, if they haven't yet refinanced, are watching the interest rates and looking for that moment when they, too, will refinance their home. So the question for us today is: Why not refinance student loans just the same as we refinance our homes? Well, the loans are owned by the Federal Government. So this is a question for us in Congress to say: Yes, let's do something to give the American economy a boost. Let's give something to those families, those young students that are out of school and those that are still in school--an opportunity to refinance their loans and to recalculate the interest on loans that they will be taking out in the months and years ahead. Take a look at this. Undergraduate loans from the Federal Government are now 4.29 percent. If you are in the other programs, it may be 5 percent. And if you are in the graduate program, it is 6.84 percent. The Federal Government can borrow money somewhere less than 2 percent, or right around 2 percent for 10 years. If you add another percent for administrative costs, we could refinance all that $1.2 trillion of student loans down to 3.23 percent. What a break that would give to students in school and out of school and those that are going to be borrowing money for the next school year, 3.2 percent versus 4.29 percent. Or, if you are a graduate student, 3.2 percent versus 6.84 percent--less than half the interest rate. We can do it. We can do this. And when we do it, we can help those students that are now carrying that incredible burden of having to pay these extraordinary interest rates to the Federal Government, which is actually making a $138 billion profit on the backs of students. So I go back to that gentleman there at the Calaveras County Fair who now has a business, but also has a student loan that he took out to get the education he needed to start that business. I would go back to him and say: I will tell you what. Instead of a 6 percent or 7 percent loan, we can refinance your loan down to 3.23 percent. And what does it mean to the individual student? It means a great deal. So we have introduced H.R. 5274, the Student Loan Refinancing and Recalculation Act. It will do the following. It would set all student loan interest rates at 3.25 percent--new ones that come up, existing ones, graduate loans, low-income family loans, and the like. If you happen to be a low-income family, and many of these students are--in fact, the great majority of low-income student are, in fact, taking out loans. For those borrowers, it will be thousands of dollars of interest saved, because we also calculate that the interest will not begin to accrue until after graduation. Also, we know that the average savings for students will be over $2,000 on their loans. It also eliminates the origination fee. Why is the Federal Government charging an origination fee when a student actually goes to the financial office at the university and the paperwork is done by the university? Yet the Federal Government--your Federal Government--is sticking it one more way to the students by charging an origination fee. So the new piece of legislation, H.R. 5274, the Student Loan Refinancing and Recalculation Act, is an enormous advantage to the American economy by allowing these students to hang on to a little bit more of their money and to engage in the economy: get married, get a car, buy a house. I had an interesting conversation with the bankers that came into my office a while back. They said: The interest rate is not the only problem. I said: Really? What is the rest of it? They said: These students are carrying these loans on their assets or their liabilities, and when we look at their asset-liability, we see this enormous debt, and we cannot even offer them a loan. He said: If you are able to reduce that--the interest rate and, therefore, the payments that are required--we will be better able to offer them a loan for a car or a house. So let's do it. The Federal Government ought not be making $138 billion profit on the backs of students. We can borrow money at less than 2 percent or right around 2 percent for 10 years. Let's refinance all of those $1.2 trillion of loans down to 3.2 percent. And for the new loans that the students are going to be taking up this coming year, let's give them a break. Instead of 4, 5, or 6 percent, let's do 3.2 percent. It is just 1 percent more than the Federal Government can borrow money. So keep in mind H.R. 5274, the Student Loan Refinancing and Recalculation Act. My colleagues, let's do it. Let's do it for the students--both new and existing students--and families that have taken out loans so that their children can get ahead, so that those students that have taken out that loan can have the burden reduced. Refinance your house, refinance your student loan. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 29 at the desk.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is known as amendment 116. I think most of us should be aware that we are well into the first quarter of a new nuclear arms race this time with not only Russia, but with China. And perhaps there are some others out there that would like to build nuclear weapons and armaments. This amendment goes directly to one of the critical parts of that arms race, which is the development of what is essentially a new nuclear bomb. Some would like to say it is simply a refurbishment of an older weapon, and I guess you can get away with that if you stretch the words a bit. But this is the W80-4 nuclear bomb. It is the warhead that will go on the new cruise missile, sometimes called the LSRO. It is a very expensive proposition. This particular budget calls for $240 million to be spent this year on the early stages of the refurbishment. We are probably looking at twice that level of funding over the next decade to develop a few hundred of these weapons or these bombs. We need to wake up. We need to be paying attention to this trillion- dollar enterprise. Over the next 25 years, we will be spending $1 trillion on a new nuclear arms race. To what effect? Well, some would say that what we have is old and we ought to have something that is new. Well, what is old actually continues to work for many, many years. So it is not just the nuclear bombs that will be refurbished or rebuilt or life-extended or whatever words you want to use, but they are new and are extraordinary expensive and, obviously, extraordinarily dangerous. We are going to develop an entire new array of delivery systems. Discussed on the House floor not so long ago in debate was the question of whether we ought to have new intercontinental ballistic missiles in the silos in the upper Midwest. It was an interesting debate. The result of the debate was, well, we ought to build new ICBMs for those silos without paying too much attention to the cost, and we ought to have a whole new array of nuclear-armed submarines, a new Stealth Bomber, and a new cruise missile. So what are we talking about here? A trillion dollars. At the same time, we debate on the floor whether we have any money for Zika. Apparently, we don't; although that is a real threat, and it is real today. We talk about our community water systems, and we don't have any money for those either. I will tell you where the money is. It is in this nuclear arms race. It is not about disarmament. Nobody is suggesting that. It is about are we going to spend all this money and perpetuate what is already underway without giving thought to the impact it is going to have on the things that we know we must do--educate our children, provide the infrastructure for our communities, our water, our sanitation systems, and our transportation systems--or are we going to go about building new nuclear bombs. Apparently, that is what we are going to do because there is $240 million right here, money that we didn't have available for Zika, money that we don't have for the water systems of Flint, Michigan, or our own State of California. But it is here. The W80--keep that number in mind, ladies and gentlemen. You are going to see that coming back before you as we appropriate more and more dollars for not only this new nuclear bomb, but for many others. So I draw your attention to this issue. I ask that we move about $100 million of this money out of this nuclear bomb that we really don't need for another decade. We don't need it tomorrow. We may never need it. It won't be on any piece of equipment for at least a decade. So why don't we spend this money on our communities? Why don't we spend it on Flint, Michigan? Why don't we spend it on the communities in Central Valley, California, that we have heard so much about? There are communities that don't have water systems, communities in the San Joaquin Valley that we heard so much about just a moment ago where the children have to take their water out of a horse water trough, not out of a tap. No, we are going to spend our money building a new nuclear bomb. I think that is wrong. I think it is not necessary. In fact, I know it is not necessary. But that is what we are going to do. So I ask you to make a choice, to make a choice to spend our money on what we need today: clean water systems, transportation, and education, not on a new nuclear bomb.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. About an hour ago, this House of Representatives kicked off a new quarter in the ongoing California water war. This House passed a piece of legislation that will ultimately gut the Endangered Species Act; the Clean Water Act; the biological opinions protecting salmon and smelt; the health of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere, the San Francisco Bay; and salmon up and down the Pacific Coast. This amendment is designed to stop the ultimate threat to the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay. The ultimate threat is the twin tunnels that are being proposed by the Brown administration, tunnels that are sized at 15,000-cubic-feet-per- second capacity, tunnels that have the capability to take half or take all of the water out of the Sacramento River. Six months of the year, the Sacramento River flows somewhere between 12,000 and 18,000 cubic feet per second. These tunnels, if ever built, will be capable of literally sucking the Sacramento River dry and destroying the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. This amendment is designed to protect the delta by denying the State of California the opportunity to use the Federal Government to build such a destructive system. We don't need that system. There are solutions to the delta problem. There are solutions that are capable of addressing the water issues of California. They have been proposed for many, many years. But this particular proposal that has been on the books for, now, nearly half a decade is the ultimate vampire ditch that will suck the Sacramento River dry and destroy the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere. It is not needed. It is, at a minimum, a $15 billion boondoggle that will not create 1 gallon of new water. It will only destroy. It will be the ultimate death. Some day, what was proved here in the House of Representatives not more than an hour ago, some day the votes will be there both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and a bill will be sent to the President that will not be able to be vetoed. We will see the death of the largest estuary, the most important estuary on the West Coast of the Western Hemisphere from Alaska to Chile. There is no other place like this. The solutions are known. They have been proposed. They have been out there. Build the infrastructure. I have introduced a bill that would provide the Federal Government to work with the State government, in proposition 1 at the State level, to bring into harmony reservoirs, underground aquifers, conservation, recycling, desalinization, community water supplies. It is in the legislation. It is available to us today. All of that, without destroying the delta and also operating it in such a manner that we let science determine what to do--not legislation, not legislation here, not the desire of the Governor of California, but, rather, science. Where are the fish? Are they going to be harmed? Ramp the pumps down. If they are not going to be harmed, then turn the pumps on--very simple. But the solution that passed the House today doesn't do that. Oh, it gives some bypassing words to the Endangered Species Act, to the biological opinions. But, in reality, what it does, it says turn the dam pumps on anyway. Let them rip. Let them destroy the delta. This bill speaks to the second threat to the delta--not the legislation that was passed today, but the issue that is before the California voters in November, the issue that is before the California Legislature and others today--and that issue is: Should the tunnels be built? The tunnels must never be built. They must never be built because they are the ultimate existential threat to the delta. With their size, 15,000 cubic feet per second, they are perfectly capable of taking all of the water out of the Sacramento River half of the year. Don't ever build something that is so destructive. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.