John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you. I might just point out that, with sequestration this year, we took $250 million out of the Corps of Engineers' budget, so we're building on a lower base. This is going to be tragedy and tragic--but, Madam Chair, these are our priorities. Oh, excuse me. These are not my priorities. These are the majority's priorities.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, a few moments ago, I talked about priorities; $7.6 billion plus for nuclear weapons. We just heard the gentleman discuss the issue of locks and levees and ports, projects in my district for the ports, for deepening the channels, for rebuilding and expanding. The economic activity in this Nation is not going to be funded. Do we really need to spend an additional $7.6 billion-plus on nuclear weapons when we have over 8,000 of them--Russia 7,000, China 250--do we really need to spend the money there, or do we need to spend it on our economic activity, as the gentleman just said? There is not enough money in the Corps of Engineers' budget to provide for all of the ports, all of the improvements that are needed, so that our ports on the west coast, the east coast, gulf coast can be competitive. Apparently, we have enough money. Why don't we take some money out of this program and put it where it will be immediately beneficial? It's a matter of priorities. Where your money is is where your heart is. Okay. That's not where my heart is. You talked about all-of-the-above energy. We ought to talk about all- of-the-above energy. Yet, ARPA-E, where we create the new science, the new technology, the new programs that will provide us with new energy sources, improved energy sources, and the improvement of all energy sources--gutted, gutted; an 87 percent reduction. The Office of Science, where we do real research, where we really can do all-of-the- above, whether it is coal or oil or renewables--gutted; a 73 percent reduction. Where are our priorities? Where are the priorities of the House of Representatives? Is it to build more nuclear weapons that by the grace of God we will never use--8,000 of them? Or is it to build a levee? Or is it to make sure the researchers at our universities and laboratories have the money that they need to really deal with the problem of the future, which is climate change? It's about priorities. Madam Chair, it's about priorities, and through you, of course, I ask my colleagues: What are the priorities? They are listed very clearly in your legislation.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would be happy to address my comments through the Chair. Madam Chair, the priorities that are in this bill are dead wrong. Natomas in Sacramento, 20-foot potential water in the wintertime, with the water temperature somewhere in the 40 to 50 degree range, perhaps human life can last 10 minutes--maybe--but that's the priority. Hamilton City, the same situation. Yuba City, Marysville, the same situation. A winter storm in California and a levee break is deadly. This is not New Orleans, where you can stay in the water for a few hours. This is cold water temperature. And yet, Madam Chair, the majority's position is to build more nuclear weapons and not to build levees. When the flood occurs, and it will, what will happen? Could we not take $100 million out of the nuclear weapons account and put it into the levees account in the Army Corps of Engineers? Apparently not. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The rapidity with which this process is moving, we might be dealing with the Transportation rather than the Energy and Water appropriations; therefore, my amendment apparently passed without an opportunity to present it. We just heard our colleague from Oregon speak to the issue of flooding. I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River, yet this bill ignores the need for this Congress to protect human life. This bill spends $7.67 billion on nuclear weapons and cuts the money for levee protection. Human life is at risk in my district, and yet this bill ignores the reality of flooding. When a flood occurs in my district, it's not in the summertime; it is not warm water. It is very, very cold water and thousands of lives are at risk. Yet the majority cannot seem to find the money necessary to protect human life, but plenty of money for nuclear weapons. Is this the priority, $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons and not enough money to protect the lives of the citizens of this Nation from real danger, real floods? It's really going to happen, gentlemen and ladies of the majority. The Corps of Engineers' budget is decimated, and for the last 3 years we have not been able to get one new project even though human life is at risk. Is that the priority? Apparently, human life is not. Projects in my district: the Hamilton project for the last 3 years has been in the President's budget, yet no New START prohibitions place us in a dangerous situation in my district. Apparently, we need more nuclear weapons but not more levees. Is that the majority's position? $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons, and not enough for a $15 million project to protect the citizens of Hamilton City. You should be ashamed that that's your priority. This particular appropriation bill is an abomination. It is a disgrace. It is a representation of the wrong priorities. But yet that's what you want to do. I suppose if this had not been a railroad and you weren't moving things so fast, I would have had an amendment opportunity to simply say that New START vital to the life and well- being of citizens in this Nation should be in this bill, but I didn't have a chance to do that because of the railroad you're operating here. Run it as you will, but at the end of the day there will be human life at stake, at risk, and, quite likely--quite likely--floods in the 200 miles of the Sacramento River and its tributary that I represent. This is wrongheaded. This is wrong. Your priorities could not be worse. You should be ashamed that this is the priority you put. Levees will not be built. Human life will be at risk. But, presumably, that's what you want.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. We certainly have seen this many, many times over here on the floor. Mark, maybe you want to comment on this.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me see if I understand what you were saying. The Republican proposal--which has passed the House of Representatives, is over in the Senate, and hopefully will die there-- by their proposal of allowing an adjustable rate on the student loans, they will actually bring money into the United States Treasury to reduce the deficit, or are they going to use that money for education?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm going to put up another chart here that speaks to what you just said. This chart talks about our colleagues' proposal. That was one that we passed here. We like to say that this is really about making education more expensive. Here's how it works. Our proposal is to keep the interest rate--and this is a person that's maxed out. They've borrowed the maximum amount from the Stafford loan; this is the subsidized portion of it. This is the total interest that they pay over 5 years of a subsidized loan. The proposal that we put forward would be $4,174 of interest. What's going to happen, unless we pass a law, is that that number will go to $8,808. That's the doubling of the interest rate from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. Now, the thing that I'll never understand--and this bill passed the House of Representatives a couple of months ago--was the proposal by our Republican colleagues that would actually force the students to pay more than just the doubling. You go, What's that all about? Why would they do that? So under the proposal that we say actually makes education more expensive, the Republican proposal would go to $10,109, as opposed to our proposal, which would keep it at $4,174. Or even allowing the rate to double, the Republican proposal is actually more expensive. It doesn't make sense. I would say nonsense is probably a better way of describing it--no sense. But it just creates a serious problem. Now, the proposal that the President has made is somewhere between these two numbers--actually, just a little over $4,000. That proposal is based on a 10-year note, the 10-year Treasury bond that would then set the floor. This one is also based on a Treasury bond--that's the GOP proposal-- but it is like an adjustable-rate mortgage on your home. So every year, as the interest changes, you're going to pay more and more. And we know that right now interest rates were, just 3 weeks ago, at an all-time low. But now you're looking at a situation where we're looking at those interest rates going up, and the Republican proposal would automatically adjust upward. It's one of the adjustable-rate mortgages that got this country into such great trouble. I notice that Rush Holt is here from New Jersey. Rush Holt, please join us. I know that this is an issue that is very important to you. If I recall correctly, you represent a university. What is that university?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, certainly that. And then a young person graduating from college, sometimes they want to get married. They may have to delay that. They want to form a household, buy a house, rent a house, buy the furniture. They can't because they've got to pay this off first.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, then you're one of these students--ex-students. $1 trillion, this number, the total student loan, is well over $1 trillion today. This is greater than the total credit card debt of every American. So we're looking at a situation where student debt is now larger than the credit card debts of all Americans. This is an enormous burden. But what this also does--and perhaps you have not only personal experience, but other--is that when a student graduates, their first obligation is to pay off this debt. You can't go into bankruptcy. This debt is going to follow you. With or without bankruptcy, you've got to make these payments. Now, last year we passed a bill that tends to modify how much you can pay. I think it's no more than 10 percent. The President's proposal takes that further and applies the 10 percent not just to the new loans that are taken out, but to all existing loans. So as your income from a teacher, you would be required to pay no more than 10 percent of your income to pay down this debt. But if this debt has an interest rate of 3.4 percent, well, you can get it paid off more quickly. But if it's 6.8 percent, it's going to take longer and be more difficult.

Mr. GARAMENDI. We can just take a very quick look at the math. If it's a $100,000 debt and it's 3.4 percent--and you're paying just the interest rate, not the principal of the loan--you're talking about $3,400 a year that you would be paying at the current rate. Double it, you're talking $6,800 a year. So just that alone, without paying down the principal, you're looking at a very significant burden on a person that's leaving school, graduating just this year. We need to deal with that. And the effort that's under way here by the Democrats in Congress--and also by President Obama, who's put forth, I think, a very solid program--gives the students an opportunity. This is a very interesting chart here, Mark. And I think it's one that you're aware of. I know you've paid off your loan now, but that group hasn't.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity for this hour. Joining me tonight will be Mark Takano from the State of California. We just heard 4 or 5, maybe 10 minutes of talk about the energy issue. I would like to put a slightly different face on it. It's not the main subject matter of this hour, which is really about jobs and how education fits into that, but this is sort of along the line, and it follows directly on what my Republican colleagues are talking about: denying that there is real climate change going on. We can no longer deny the fact that we as human beings have, over this last century, been putting into the atmosphere a vast amount of carbon dioxide that is changing our environment. But what I want to spend just a moment on here is to discuss how education fits into this issue of climate change. It's an area in which the institutions of higher learning and students play an enormously important role combating climate change and developing a clean energy economy. Today, as we just heard from our Republican colleagues, President Obama outlined a plan to address the threat of climate change. He recognized what the scientists have said, which is during 2013--this year--we'll have another record year for climate problems. Deadly flooding, superstorms, droughts, and impacts on sensitive species are just a sampling of the dire consequences that climate change is already bringing to America and the rest of the world. In my district, home to the University of California, Davis, vitally important research is already being carried out to rise to the challenge of climate change. This research ranges from how changes in our climate are going to negatively impact agriculture and native California fish, flora, and fauna, and what we can do about it. Just this month, Dr. Daniel Sperling of the University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies was one of two recipients of the 2013 Blue Planet Prize for his monumental work in clean transportation, hydrogen fuel infrastructure, and research into how we can achieve a 100 percent renewable energy economy for the globe and for America. The expansion of the clean energy section would also play a very, very important role in what we will fundamentally discuss here today, which is creating jobs and spurring economic growth. Recent research indicates that the revenue generated from clean energy globally within the next 5 years will create $1.9 trillion of revenue. Studies also show that States with larger green energy sectors are much more economically sound postrecession. We're on the right track. Last year, California led the national record for the most jobs created in the green energy sector, with over 26,000 new jobs being created. It's evident that we have the building blocks in place to make the changes that are needed for our future, especially in my home State of California. As Dr. Sperling said, solutions are all around us, and indeed, they are. Let me just go into how that fits into our common agenda here, an agenda that we speak about nearly every week. We're talking about Make It in America. There are these seven things that are involved in the Make It in America agenda. Trade policy is critically important. It's not the subject for tonight, but it's the trade policy of the United States as it affects jobs and bringing jobs back to America. Taxes. Tax policy is exceedingly important. I don't think the American public knew that prior to 2 years ago, American corporations were rewarded for offshoring jobs. When the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, we eliminated some $16 billion annual tax deductions that American corporations had to offshore jobs. Energy issues. That's not the subject for tonight, but given what our Republican colleagues were talking about and my little 1-minute here, that is a major issue. And we know that the green energy economy creates jobs. The old coal economy doesn't. Labor issues. The value of labor, rebuilding the middle class. Research is critically important, but not the subject for tonight. And infrastructure, which is often our subject, we'll put off until next week. What we want to talk about tonight is education. We want to talk about the role of education in rebuilding the American economy. A critical, critical part of the education issue is something that's going to happen in 5 days. At the end of this month, on July 1, 2013, thousands upon thousands, indeed, millions of students across the United States that have received Stafford loans are going to see a doubling of their interest rate, an interest rate that will go from 3.4 to 6.8. It's an incredible burden on the students across the Nation. Some who have finished school, others who are about to finish school or maybe just finished their graduation ceremonies are going to be greeted with a doubling of their interest rates. On the Democratic side of the aisle, more than 200 of us have put forth and already signed up for an effort to bring to the floor a solution to this problem. So we want to talk about that tonight. We want to talk about the Democratic solution to avoid this extraordinary problem that will be faced by millions of students who have graduated and have just picked up their degree this month. Joining me tonight for this discussion is Mark Takano, a newly elected Representative from the State of California, who represents the University of California, Riverside campus. Mark, please join us. Take up that microphone in front of you and tell us how this affects your district and the students in your district.

Mr. GARAMENDI. All of that is true, and we've got 5 days. The Congress of the United States has 5 days in which to make a fundamental decision about how we treat those who are participating in the most important investment that any society makes, which is the investment in education. Right now, we are asking most students to pay for their own education through loans and through some grants that are given through Pell Grants, but they've taken on enormous amounts of debt. Students in the United States have taken on $1 trillion of debt. A large portion of that debt is the Stafford loans, subsidized and unsubsidized. The loan rate on those programs is going to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent in just 5 days, creating an enormous burden on the students on whom we rely to grow our economy. They've made the investment, and this society has made the investment in them. We need to free them so that they can participate more fully in our society--so that they can participate as consumers and so that they can participate as small businesses men and women, the entrepreneurs. All of this is possible if we take action, and we must. We owe it to those students. We owe it to the economy. We owe it to our ability to make it once again in America. All of these things come together with immigration reform, as you've pointed out, Mr. Takano. I really appreciate you being with us tonight. I think we've pretty much closed off this subject. We'll be back next week to talk about Making It in America--about jobs. Today, we've talked about how education fits into the jobs agenda. We've got 5 days to solve a very, very serious problem for millions of Americans who have gotten their educations or who have just graduated who are now going to be faced with a doubling of their interest rates. We can do this. We have the power, we have the ability, and we have the proposals--the President's proposal and the proposal here from the Democrats--and we ask that those proposals be acted upon. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. It's really true. The comprehensive immigration reform bill that's being discussed does bring into our economy those people who have the high skills, many of whom came here and got an education but who under the current law have to leave and go start their businesses in China, India or somewhere else around the world. Part of that comprehensive immigration reform would allow those men and women who have taken their education in the United States--gotten their degrees, their doctorates in engineering or electrical engineering or whatever--to stay in the United States. It turns out that our State, California, is the great engine of economic growth. Some of it is in southern California with the entertainment industry and the way in which it is now merging into the electronic industry and all of the things that are going on with Google and the use of the smartphones for disseminating content--movies and the like. In the Silicon Valley, many of those start-up companies are immigrants. In fact, the majority of start-ups in the Silicon Valley are immigrants--a very interesting fact that goes back to the issue of immigration reform. We want to bring to America the talent. We want to bring--we want to be able to use--in America these extraordinary workers and make sure that they have access to the education system that then is the fundamental investment and make sure that they are able to participate and move our economy forward.

Mr. GARAMENDI. This is the Make It in America agenda. As you say, you could easily add to this immigration reform as one of the things we need to do. These men and women--some 12 million who are here without documents--are unable to really rise up into these more highly skilled jobs. In many ways, their educational opportunities and their children's educational opportunities may be limited. This is the fundamental investment in any society; and giving access to people with that education, immigrant or not, allows us to build the American economy.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That's very interesting. Mr. Takano, you're absolutely correct about the role of immigration and the comprehensive reform. There are some pieces that we often talk about: the DREAMers, the young men and women that came here as children, brought here. They don't have their papers, but they also do not have the opportunity to really get the kind of education. So we have the DREAMers. But here's what I think Mr. Holt was talking about that's really important, and this is part of what you were saying, Mr. Takano, about immigration reform--access to all the benefits of the economy and what it means. If you happen to be a person that has less than a high school education, which is where you started your discussion on the immigration act, you're taking a look at perhaps as high as 14 percent unemployment and the average median--or excuse me, not average, but the median weekly earnings, less than $500 a week, $451 a week. If you get a high school degree, you may get $638, the median weekly income, but you're still looking at 9.4 percent unemployment. Here's where the issue of education comes in at the post-high school education and here's where the Stafford loan issue comes in. If you're able to go to college and get that bachelor's degree, your income is going to be more than double if you don't finish high school and nearly double what you would have if you were able to finish high school. So getting that education--and this is part of the immigration issue, and it's the facts that you were laying out so very well, Mr. Takano. If you're able to get that education with borrowing money, a Stafford loan, subsidized or unsubsidized, with a low interest rate, you're going to be looking at a median weekly earnings of well over $1,000 and your unemployment rate will be less than 5 percent. If you go on to get that professional degree--and here's where you and your own history have been able to get that professional degree, that master's degree---you're looking at $1,600 median weekly income and the unemployment rate is down. So here you begin to see not only how immigration fits into education, but how an individual, an immigrant or not, will be able to improve their life. And as they improve their personal life, they are improving the economy; they're bringing greater wealth to the economy, greater productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency to the economy. All of this is dependent upon immigration reform, as you pointed out so very well, as well as how we finance education. Now, if we allow this situation that's going to occur in just 5 days--we're coming up against a crisis for the education for those men and women, immigrants or not, for those who want to get an education, who want to move beyond high school--they're looking at a doubling--at least 6.8 percent--of the interest rates on their Stafford loans. So they're going, Well, maybe I can't finish college; maybe I can't even start; and maybe I'm not going to be able to get that master's degree or that doctorate when I know that I will be able to be more productive to the economy and earn a higher living. So these things fit together, and I thank you so very much for pointing out the way in which the immigration issue fits into this. We really must have comprehensive immigration reform.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to congratulate ACDI/VOCA on the occasion of their 50th anniversary. This outstanding organization was founded in 1963 with the mission of empowering people around the world to take advantage of economic opportunities and improve quality of life for their families and communities. To this date, ACDI/VOCA continues to fulfill this mission, as they help millions of individuals and families fight their way out of poverty. Their notable accomplishments include contributing to the launch of the Green Revolution in India, strengthening Ethiopian co-ops to bring their coffee into global prominence, and pioneering grassroots financial services across the former Soviet Union. With a staff comprised of 90 percent locally-hired employees, and working through a network of over 3,000 local partner organizations, ACDI/VOCA combines the best in international development expertise with powerful grassroots capacities to implement effective programming that has a real and sustained impact. Congratulations to ACDI/VOCA President and CEO Carl H. Leonard, as well as to the esteemed members of the Board of Directors: Mortimer Neufville (Chairman), Honorable Timothy J. Penny (Vice Chairman), Deborah Atwood, Dr. G.N. Saxena, Charles F. Conner, Kurt M. Ely, Jerry Fenner, Patricia Wilkinson Garamendi, William Harris, James. K. Hoyt, R. Bruce Johnson, and David Cobb. I commend ACDI/VOCA on their history of outstanding service and am confident that they will continue to make a difference in people's lives around the world long into the future.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to congratulate ACDI/VOCA on the occasion of their 50th anniversary. This outstanding organization was founded in 1963 with the mission of empowering people around the world to take advantage of economic opportunities and improve quality of life for their families and communities. To this date, ACDI/VOCA continues to fulfill this mission, as they help millions of individuals and families fight their way out of poverty. Their notable accomplishments include contributing to the launch of the Green Revolution in India, strengthening Ethiopian co-ops to bring their coffee into global prominence, and pioneering grassroots financial services across the former Soviet Union. With a staff comprised of 90 percent locally-hired employees, and working through a network of over 3,000 local partner organizations, ACDI/VOCA combines the best in international development expertise with powerful grassroots capacities to implement effective programming that has a real and sustained impact. I commend ACDI/VOCA on their history of outstanding service and am confident that they will continue to make a difference in people's lives around the world long into the future.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. This is a marketing order. The underlying law establishes a marketing order. A marketing order allows the producers to come together and decide how they're going to market their products and do it in a way that sets up standards for their products. This is common across virtually every aspect of American agriculture. This is nothing new. When you have a marketing order that involves imported as well as domestically produced, those imports are also affected by the qualifications and the standards set on that marketing order. This is not new. In fact, virtually everything you'll find in the produce, including many of the products that were described a moment ago, are controlled by a marketing order. We're not exactly sure, until the marketing order, what kind of regulations and quality standards will be put in place; but once they're in place, then whether it's an imported or a domestically produced oil, they'll have to abide by the same regulations. With regard to the cost, this is not new either. This happens in virtually most of the kinds of commodities and products that are imported and produced domestically. We're not talking about something radical.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, after three debates in support of my colleague from New York, I find myself on the opposite side of this issue. We are in the process of developing a very viable American olive oil industry, one that has great potential. At the same time, that industry faces a question from the consumers about the quality of the oil that is available, both domestically produced, as well as internationally produced. There have been numerous studies done that indicate that there is a lot of misrepresentation as to the quality and the nature of olive oil. This bill, the FARRM Bill, simply establishes the opportunity for the creation of a marketing order that would eventually provide a farmer- oriented regulation of the quality and the type of olive oil that's going to be on the market. That would apply both to imported, as well as domestically produced, olive oil. The cost of this need not be as high as my colleague from New York suggests. It is probable, and most feasible, that the olive oil that's imported would be checked as to its quality and consistency at the point of export, certainly not at the retail and probably not at the point of import. This can be done. This is done in many, many products that are produced in America, as well as imported--quality controls, consumer awareness. This is a very important bill for the domestic nascent olive oil industry.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. I wish we had time to sit down and talk about this. It's really a shame that we're here on the floor at this moment. Really, I think, both of us are in support of protecting our forests, of enhancing their ability to continue to produce jobs, the food, the fiber and the wood that we need in our economy and in our society. We're not very far apart. If there's something here that needs to be worked out between these two programs, I'm sure we could do it. But this really gives us an opportunity to really do what I think all of us want, and that is to preserve our forests, keep them in operating production, and allow the nonprofits to participate together with the States. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Pennsylvania, I thought, was making a wonderful argument in support of this legislation, in that you talked about the success of the Forest Legacy Program, and it really has been eminently successful. And you also talked about the demands on the program, and that's true. Many, many States want to implement this program. But you didn't mention the fact that many States don't have the resources to manage additional properties, to manage additional trusts that they've taken. This would allow those States to make a decision. It's a State decision, it's not a Federal decision, it's not a decision by a private nonprofit qualified trust. This is a decision by the State to welcome into their program a private, nonprofit, qualified trust that does this kind of work that could then manage the trust without the State having to spend the money. The State maintains oversight and, should something happen that the trust is unable to continue, it would then revert to the State. But this is a way of really expanding what, apparently, the three of us want to have happen. You mentioned another program that does exist. Wonderful. Those programs could work in unison with the Federal Government participating, the State government participating, and the private. But the problem here is that, under the Forest Legacy Program, the private, nonprofit qualified trust can't participate in that program. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from the State of New York (Mr. Gibson).