John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a reason for my absence during a series of votes on Thursday, January 9, 2014. During Roll Calls 7-10, I was suffering from severe back spasms and went immediately to the Attending Physician's office for assistance. If present, I would have voted yes during Roll Calls 7, 8 and 9 and I would have voted no during Roll Call 10.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Horsford, thank you so very, very much. Mr. Tonko, thank you. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present a true American agenda. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. And he did too. So actually, before the Erie Canal it was George Washington that laid out an economic growth agenda for the United States. He asked Alexander Hamilton to prepare a policy on manufacturing, or manufactures as they called it there. Part of it was the development of a canal system, in other words, the infrastructure the ports, the canals, and the roads. In fact, the Constitution says there should be post roads in the United States. Much to talk about. Make it in America. Use our tax dollars to buy American-made products in these areas: trade, taxes, energy, education, and research. Oh, by the way, 2 years ago, the President of the United States stood right there in his State of the Union and said, here is an American jobs program. Do you know what he talked about? Every one of these issues. If this Congress had acted, trains, locomotives, 100 percent American built in Sacramento, California, and a new contract coming up for even more of these state-of-the-art locomotives. Mr. Horsford, end the lightning round, and then we will turn this back to the Speaker.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, somehow I knew from previous experience here on the floor that you were going to mention the Erie Canal.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am delighted that you came here. I think the people of America as they come to know you over the years that you will serve here in Congress will share that delight, your wisdom, your ability to articulate key issues. Thank you so very much for joining us tonight. Continuing our lightning round, Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you so very, very much. We have got about 10 or 12 minutes here. Let's do kind of one of those back and forth real fast. I am going to go through a bunch of placards here very, very quickly. This is part of our job agenda. It is called the Make It In America agenda. They are trade policies, and we are going to be dealing with a major one of that. Mr. Horsford talked about tax policy, critically important; energy policy, which we have not come to tonight; labor issues; we have definitely talked about the minimum wage, critically important; equal dollars. Minimum wage in 1978, Ronald Reagan, was $10.60. Same purchasing power today at $7.25. Education. We talked a little bit about the education--not a little bit, Mr. Horsford. You talked a great deal about the education, reeducation programs. Research, which we haven't covered today. And, of course, the infrastructure issues. And by the way--you are using American taxpayer dollars for all of these things--we ought to be buying American-made products. So we will make it in America using American taxpayer dollars. We talked a lot about infrastructure. Every dollar you invest, $1.57, pumped into the economy, jobs created. Mr. Horsford, you talked about the unemployment in the building trades, very important. Most people can go back to work, and this can go immediately. Oh, by the way, August of this year, unless we fund and expand the transportation programs in the United States, there will be no more new bids for transportation programs. This issue is before the Congress today. This one, this is what happens when you don't invest in infrastructure. This is the Interstate 5 bridge in Washington just near the Canadian border. You talk about commerce, it came to a halt. This bridge collapsed. More than a couple of thousand bridges in the United States are in similar jeopardy and could collapse. Major infrastructure needs to be done. This is my district. I have 1,100 miles of levees, floods. We have a Resource Development Act bill in conference--I am fortunate enough to be on that conference committee--and this is what we must do. We must improve our levees, we must deal with Superstorm Sandys, and we must make sure that we are protecting our citizens. Once again, how do we pay for it? Why are we giving the Karzai government $3 billion not knowing how they are going to spend it? I will tell you where you can spend $3 billion. You make sure our levees are sound and up to date. Mr. Horsford, would you like to join us and we will do the quick minutes here.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Take a break.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Horsford, thank you very much for bringing to us the message from Nevada, the message of compassion and the message of hope and the challenge that we face. This House is fortunate, as are the constituents that have elected you, to have your voice heard on the floor and heard across America. Now, over the last 3 years, my colleague from New York and I have talked about jobs, talked about making it in America, and talked about this problem of unemployment. So joining me now is Paul Tonko from the great State of New York.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is good to return from our 3 weeks back in our districts. I suspect that most of us spent time talking to our constituents, observing the good and the bad and the cold and the wet--not in California, where we have been in the midst of a drought--but working, as we should, back in our districts and also spending some time with our families along the way. For me, it was one of those periods of time where we were reaching out, trying to gain an understanding of the challenges that face our constituents. As I returned here today, I realized that in 1964, Mr. Speaker, right below you on the podium where one of our key assistants is now standing, a fellow by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson gave a speech-- here is a picture of him--on January 8, 1964, speaking to a joint session of Congress. I think it was his first speech after becoming President, following the tragic assassination of President Kennedy. There he stood. And among the things he told America was that it was time for a war, a war on poverty, and he urged the United States to take on the troubling and continuing issue of poverty in the United States. I remember that speech. I was in college at the time. I remember him standing there, and I remember that challenge, following shortly upon the challenge that President Kennedy had given us to ask not what our country could do for us but, rather, what we could do for our country. So those two things came together, and they have been with me these many, many years, together with one other very famous and very important challenge. And this was from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is etched into the marble in his memorial here in Washington, D.C. President Roosevelt said: 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. That ethical moral position was taken up by Lyndon Baines Johnson when he declared the war on poverty 50 years ago--50 years ago--at a time when seniors in the United States, 47 percent of them, were impoverished. I remember well during those years when my father took me to the county hospital to visit a neighbor, the poverty, the ward, the odor, the hopelessness. So what did America do? What did America do to face this challenge? Well, Social Security was already in place, one of the fundamental pillars to deal with poverty among seniors. In this Chamber, in the Senate Chamber, the men and women who then represented the American people put forward an extraordinary effort to deal with poverty in the United States. And one of those major second pillars to address poverty was the establishment of the Medicare program for seniors. Men and women over 65 years of age were guaranteed that, if they lived to 65 in the days and years following, they would have a health insurance program, which was an incredible step forward. Many other things were done. Programs were put in place for jobs, job programs across this Nation, in Appalachia, in the Central Valley of California, and all across this Nation. There was an outpouring of sympathy, an outpouring of the basic morality of this country took place. In 1967, 29 percent of the children in this country were in poverty. In 2012, it was 19 percent, one out of five. That is far too high. It is a challenge for our generation. How did they bring it down from 29 percent to 19 percent? They did it with government programs of many kinds--Head Start, food stamp programs, programs dealing with earned income tax credits, which, by the way, was added during the Nixon period. All of those things together reduced the poverty. Today, take away those government support programs for children and we would have 30 percent of the children in the United States living in poverty. I would just like to remind my Republican colleagues that what they have attempted to do this year in their budgets, in their appropriation proposals, is to reduce those programs that 30 percent of the children of the United States--nearly one out of three--depend upon to stay out of poverty. That is not a good idea. If this is one of our moral compasses, adding to the abundance of those who have much or providing for those who have too little, if that is a moral compass, how are we doing? Well, let's look at it. Let's look at how we are doing. One of the things that FDR said from the four freedoms: the freedom from want. As a result of the Great Recession in 2010 and beyond, 46.2 million Americans live below the poverty level, the highest number in 52 years. Food lines in America today are as they were in the 1930s. Men and women are lining up at the various food programs to get food. That is America today. How about the children? How about the children today, those one in five? Well, let's see. If FDR says the test is not how well the wealthy are doing but, rather, how the poor are doing, in 2012, the wealthiest Americans took home the biggest share of income--the biggest share of income, in 2012--ever recorded in America's history. One out of every four children in America go to bed at night not knowing where their next meal comes from. In my own area, Sacramento, California, as reported by the Sacramento Bee, the capital's newspaper, the bottom 20 percent of the region's people lost 27 percent of their income between 2007 and the beginning of 2013. The bottom 20 percent earned less than $23,000 a year, yet they lost 27 percent of their income. The next 20 percent, those making $43,000 down to $23,000 lost 22 percent of their income. The next 20 percent--we are now up to 60 percent--those making between $43,000 and $71,000 in annual income, lost 15 percent of their income. This is America today in my area, where the bottom 60 percent have not moved forward but, rather, have moved backwards. Oh, but if you are in the top 20 percent, these folks here, they took in 50 percent of all of the income generated and earned in the Sacramento region. The bottom 20 percent took in 3 percent. So Franklin Delano Roosevelt, how are we doing with our moral compass? How are we doing? Are we adding to those who have little or are we adding to those who have much? It is clear that, not just in the Sacramento, California, region but across this Nation, those who have much are doing extraordinarily well while those who have little are falling further and further behind. Hmm. Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson stood right there and he declared a war on poverty. And where are we today? We are not winning that war at all. But there are solutions. There are ways in which we can deal with this, and one of them is to put a stop to this kind of situation. This is a photo taken outside of a workshop that I conducted in Fairfield, California, for the unemployed. It is a jobs workshop. In a town of less than 100,000, 1,000 people showed up seeking a job. Unemployment is very real, and unemployment is a specific cause for the statistics that indicate growing poverty in America. These folks want a job. But yet on December 28, 1.2 million Americans--some of them here in this line--lost their unemployment insurance. So are they wealthier having lost an average of $265 a week on a long-term unemployment insurance check or are they poorer? What are they going to do? Of every one of these people, 2.9 of them are looking for the one job that exists. So one out of three will find a job, maybe. The long-term unemployed have an even greater challenge, and we will talk about that tonight. We have an enormous challenge here in America. We have got to put people back to work. In Solano County, where Fairfield is, 2,640 of the folks that stood outside searching for a job in early December--by the way, the temperature there was not below zero, but it was below freezing--they were standing in the cold, below freezing temperatures for more than an hour to get in just to have a chance to talk to the 50 or some employers that were there. By the way, 50 veterans did get an opportunity to get a job that day. 2,640 long-term unemployed lost their unemployment insurance, and they don't have a job today. So what of them? Colusa County, which I also represent, is one of the poorest counties in America and is also one of the wealthiest counties for those at the top. A population of 21,244 people lost their unemployment insurance. The stories are in the faces of these people desperate to go to work. We're going to talk today a little bit about that with my colleagues. A second way in which we can deal with this poverty issue is to deal with the minimum wage. Yesterday, I had a meeting of my agricultural advisory committee. I have a very big agricultural district, $3 billion farm gate. One of the farmers, a conservative fellow, came up to me, and he talked to me about food stamps. He said, hey, listen. I know you're working on the farm bill, and I know this issue of farm subsidies is very much in play, but I'm telling you where I'm coming from. You can reduce the subsidies, but make sure people have food. Make sure that the SNAP program, the food program, is in place. I'll trade the subsidies so people have food. He said--and this was the interesting part, because I had not heard it from a conservative before--he said, and raise the minimum wage. Raise the minimum wage. Interesting. Today, the Federal minimum wage is $7.25. If you were to use equal dollars, take out the inflation, $7.25 equates to a minimum wage in 1978--this is Ronald Reagan period, 1978--of $10.60. So in equal dollars in 1978 the minimum wage was $10.60. Today, it is $7.25. So you wonder why, why is it that in America today we have food lines? Why is it in America today that one out of four children goes to bed hungry worried about where their next meal is going to come from? Why in America after 50 years with LBJ standing right there and declaring a war on poverty, that we are where we are today? Does minimum wage have something to do with it? Oh, yes. Does unemployment have something to do with it? Oh, yes--and it's going to be worse tomorrow, as it was on December 29, January 1, January 5, 6, today the 7th and tomorrow the 8th, when 1.2 million people don't have that unemployment check and unemployment insurance is gone. By the way, it will get worse unless this Congress acts on the unemployment insurance. The statistics are there--right there. By the end of this year, unless Congress acts to put people back to work--and we can, and we will talk about that tonight--unless Congress acts to extend the unemployment insurance, 4.9 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance, and this will be the face of America: hungry children. This will be the face of America: hungry adults and families without jobs. This is America. This is the place where we can solve problems. We have it within our capability as a nation and as an economy to put people back to work. We can do it if we have the will to do it. It's up to us to look into the faces of poverty in America, to look at the children of America, and say, we can address this issue. We can put people back to work. We can do it now by rebuilding America's infrastructure. We can pay for the unemployment insurance by not spending nearly $90 billion this year in Afghanistan for the most corrupt government on the face of the Earth, $6.8 billion needed to keep Americans with food, shelter, and clothing. We can take it out of the pocket of Mr. Karzai and his cronies and still meet the challenges that my colleague spoke about earlier this evening. We're making choices here. We can build our infrastructure. We can pay for the unemployment insurance. We can educate our children. For those long-term unemployed that need a reeducation, need to have that job skill, we can do it. When we do it, this economy will grow. The taxes will flow into the governments of the United States, including the Federal Government. The deficits will shrink. You leave that long-term unemployment as high as it is today, and we have put an anchor out the back of the great economic ship of the United States, and we will not be able to move forward in a way that addresses this issue, this fundamental, moral issue of America. Are we providing enough for those who have too little? Today, we are not, but we can. Joining me tonight are two of my colleagues. From the east coast is Paul Tonko. You and I have spent many hours here on the floor discussing these issues. Joining me is our new colleague from the State of Nevada (Mr. Horsford). I'd like you to start. I know you had an experience this last week in your district when you met with people that were unemployed. Please share with us your view of this issue from the State of Nevada.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might just add to that, it is my understanding-- and I get this from the University of California-Davis--that they are losing their new Ph.D.s to other countries, particularly to China and to India, because those countries are not only increasing their total research but they are also providing these very bright, innovative, forward-thinking Ph.D.s with a full laboratory and all of the support that they might need to continue to conduct their research not only on the issue of health care but also in all of the sciences and technologies, from high technology, energy, and so forth. So we really need to get on it. My final point is here twofold. First of all, if we are going to build this economy, there are five things we have to do consistently through time. And they require public investment. First of all, education. You have got to have the best educated workforce in the world. Secondly, you have to have the best, most advanced research because that is where the future is. That is where the future economic growth will come from. You need to make the things that come from that. You need to have the infrastructure, and you need to think globally. We are not doing that. The budgets that have been put forth by our colleagues on the Republican side go exactly the other direction. They cut educational funding, beginning with early childhood education. They cut the funding for research. You see it here. Tomorrow, we are going to take up the new budget. It continues to cut research across the board, the National Institutes of Health probably included. It goes on and on. Transportation, infrastructure--forget it, there is no money for it. We have got to turn that around. These are the fundamental investments of economic growth and, more important, social justice. Congresswoman Speier, thank you so much. You have been at this, beating this drum. Don't stop. You stay with this. This is a message that the American public has to understand. These are the investments about our own personal health, our children's health, and our future economic growth, as well as addressing worldwide problems. Thank you so very much for what you are doing here and for loaning me your charts.

Mr. GARAMENDI. In the red, going down.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Waxman, for bringing up the leadership that China has. I notice that the leader of our hour talked about China's leadership in another field. Let me turn back to our leader, Representative Speier.

Mr. GARAMENDI. They are $51 billion. We are going through this budget exercise where, by the way, the sequestration cut continues, although the across-the-board is eliminated. Half of the sequestration cut will continue because of this budget, but we will be able to try to balance out the prioritization. But the total savings in 2015 is less than the $50 billion that you have suggested could be saved if we could extend the onset and the severity of Alzheimer's. We watched this very closely in my family. The fact of the matter is that the National Institutes of Health's funding for Alzheimer's is coming to understand the nature of Alzheimer's and, therefore, how to deal with it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I am so glad you interrupted because that is an extremely important fact. Let's go back and look at that. In 2015, the savings are how much?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I noticed, Representative Speier, that you love charts too. So I borrowed this. I think you used it earlier today. This is instructive. You were just talking with the Representative, our friend from San Diego, about the enormous increase that took place for the National Institutes of Health during the George W. Bush conservative period of time. It is right there, $21 billion; and then over the years, it began to lose a little bit of its, I guess, interest. And then, as we went into the late years of the George Bush administration, it dropped down there. And then, of course, the great crash. A little bump here, which I think is the stimulus bill, pushing more money into research at the National Institutes of Health. And then we have seen, beginning in 2010, what has got to be one of the stupidest policies this Nation has engaged in. It happened to be in 2011, when the House changed from Democratic control to Republican control. We have seen a very steep decline--a $1.5 billion reduction and annual decline in the National Institutes of Health. This same decline in the last 3 years is what is the result of the austerity budgets that have been imposed upon us by the Republicans trying to solve the national deficit by cutting Federal expenditures. The entire European community has come to the conclusion that doesn't work. Austerity budgeting does not increase economic growth. It has caused stagnation. Certainly, in Europe we are beginning to see, I think, a large part of the slow growth in the United States caused by austerity budgets. But specifically to the health care of Americans--our health, our well-being--this is really serious. This means people are going to have additional illnesses. You spoke earlier about some of those, like diabetes. Diabetic research funding is cut through the National Institutes of Health. This one I really find frightening. I find this frightening because this is very personal. My mother-in-law spent the last 2 years of her life with a very, very serious case of Alzheimer's disease. She died in a hospice program in our home. We, I suppose, were a very small part of this because we took care of her. But right now we are spending $200 billion a year dealing with Alzheimer's. We know that the population is going to increase and the elderly population is going to skyrocket as the baby boomers move into their later years. By 2050, it will be $1.2 trillion for Alzheimer's. Is there anybody in America, any family in America, that is not concerned about Alzheimer's? I don't know who they are. I know my family is concerned about it. Every family that I know--and I know many because I have been in public life for a long time and met perhaps thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people--and every single one of them is concerned about Alzheimer's. This is the financial side of it. The human side of it, I can tell you, is serious. I can tell you the effect it has.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Speier, thank you so very much. It is good to be on the floor. I noticed thus far it has been Californians, but this is far more than California. I see Chicago, Illinois, just arrived, and we will pick up on that. This is an issue that touches every single American. It is not a California issue. I represent northern California, not far from the Bay Area. The University of California/Davis campus is in my area. There are major, major programs in research, not just with the National Institutes of Health and the health issues that we are talking about here, but agriculture, energy research, and on and on. It turns out that that powerful engine of research is found in every part of America. So listen out there, those of you that are watching. This is not just a California issue. This is an American issue, and it is an international issue because this particular National Institutes of Health is dealing with the health of this entire world. Every person in the world is, in one way or another, affected by the research done by the National Institutes of Health, the funding that they, then, provide to the 250 universities all around this Nation to deal with illnesses, to deal with the human body and beyond. For example, Davis, which was originally known as an agricultural research institution and continues to do that, has discovered that, interestingly enough, with the mad cow issue, there is a virus that can be identified specifically with that illness so that for the cattle industry, if some cow goes a little weird, you can find out whether it has mad cow disease or it is just weird. And the very same thing applies to the human body. So this virus can be identified both in a cow--is it mad or not? Well, it may just be angry but not crazed--and in a human. Dealing with a very, very serious human issue and also a serious economic issue for those of us in the cattle business. This is a big thing. And what has happened--I love charts.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. We will go home for Christmas, and how many hungry will there be? How many unemployed will there be? We have work to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlelady.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Congresswoman Edwards, thank you very much. I have known you for the almost 4 years that I have been here. The passion that you have for the American people is unmatched. Your willingness to stand for them has been seen in many pieces of legislation and votes and also on the floor of the House of Representatives. I thank you for that. How correct you are. We are going to leave here Friday, probably around noontime. The question Americans ought to ask us is: So what have you done for America? Tell us what you have done, Congress, for America. I will tell you what we want to do. We want to put people back to work. This ought not be America. This is the inside of the hall where we had the 40 employers that were looking to hire a few people. The outside of the hall, that was 200 yards in 35 degree weather, people standing there well over an hour, some an hour and a half, two hours, wanting to at least get a shot at a job. Have we forgotten, have we forgotten about Franklin Delano Roosevelt's moral compass, the moral compass that we ought to be employing here? I am going to put up something. Ms. Edwards, if you will just stick around just a few moments. America has gone back to work, at least some Americans have gone back to work. This is the recovery; this is the reduction in the unemployment. The moral compass of America. Are we doing more for those who have much or are we doing for those who have little? This is the fact of the growth of the American economy, the creation of wealth, the creation of wealth in America. Billions of dollars. New wealth created. Where did it go? Where did that wealth go? Where did all the labor, all the hard work, all the men and women that got up in the morning and went to work, put in their 8 hours or 12 hours, their 40 hours a week or more, where did that labor, where did it go, what was the result of it? Here it is. Here is the fact. The tale of two Americans: 95 percent of the wealth created in America from 2009 to 2012 went to the top 1 percent of Americans. So all those people out there, all the 99 percenters that worked day in and day out, that struggled for a job, that stood in line to get a job, what did they get? They got 5 percent of the new wealth of the wealth created in this Nation. This is an indictment of the fundamental policies of this Nation. It wasn't always that way. During the Clinton period, the top 1 percent did very well. They got 45 percent of the wealth. The top 1 percent took 45 percent home. They did leave 55 percent for the 99 percent. This isn't just happening because the Sun comes up in the morning and sets in the evening. This happens because of public policy, tax policy, employment policy, social welfare policies, food programs, unemployment programs, and the crash of the American economy caused by greed, Wall Street greed principally, and greed of others to be sure. Keep in mind, America, this is our Nation today. Work hard? No, you may not get ahead. Keep in mind the moral compass of Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is rather whether we provide enough for those who have too little. December 28 is coming. Today is the 10th of December. Eighteen days. Just after Christmas, 3 days after Christmas, days after the holidays, 1.7 million Americans are going to lose their unemployment insurance and, since the farm bill hasn't been brought to the floor, the question of what kind of cuts will be made in the farm programs specifically for the food programs. It is not the loafers that are out there, although there are some. It is the men and women that stood in line waiting for a job in my district last Friday, stood in line at Representative Edwards' job fair here in Maryland in the past days, those people, unemployed, depending upon the supplemental food program, the senior citizens who are trying to make it with the meager benefits of Social Security. They are the ones that are receiving the supplemental food program, the food stamps. $40 billion over the next 5 to 10 years taken away, away from farmers' income, yes, and away from the men and women that are hungry. One more thing. I am going to put this up. I have seen this so many times. You want to take $40 billion away from the children of America? Is that what our Republican leadership wants to do? This is the face of America's children right there. One out of every four children in this Nation wondering where their next meal is coming from. Jobs? Absolutely. Unemployment benefits? Essential, unless you want this to be the American story. Food stamps? That is where he gets his food; that is where these American children are able to get their food during these hard times. They want to cut it. Where is the moral compass in that? Where is the fundamental moral compass when one out of four children in this Nation goes to bed hungry? Where is the moral compass that takes 95 percent of the wealth created in this Nation and gives it to the 1 percent who have millions and, indeed, billions? Something is wrong here.

Mr. GARAMENDI. One of the reasons is this: this is the infrastructure investment from 2002 to 10 years later. That is about an $85 billion reduction in infrastructure investment. I wanted just to drive home the point that you have made about putting people to work and about what happens when you bring down the infrastructure investment. People are unemployed, construction workers and beyond.

Mr. GARAMENDI. You are talking about some really, really important issues here. Bridges falling down?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Excuse me for interrupting.