John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, once again we're back here on the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about what I believe is the most pressing problem here in the United States, and that's jobs. Americans want to work, Americans are capable of working, and it ought to be our job here on the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about how we can create jobs. We've just heard about 1 hour of discussion from our good friends on the Republican side, the Doctors' Caucus, about how to destroy the Affordable Health Care Act. For 36 times, the Republicans have put up legislation that would essentially gut, amend, or destroy the Affordable Health Care Act, which has the promise and the probability of providing health insurance for 50-plus-million Americans that are today uninsured. Why would you want to deny those people health insurance? I can see no reason for it. I notice that they also did not spend any time at all talking about their effort to destroy Medicare. Medicare was a promise made to seniors by the American people that when they reach 65 years of age, they would have a guaranteed health insurance program. Yet, for the last 2 years and 4 months, the Republicans have continually put up legislation that would end Medicare as we know it and turn Medicare over to the insurance companies. One of the last statements made here on the floor by one of our colleagues was decisions on medical services ought to be in the hands of the physician and the patient. I agree. I was also the insurance commissioner in California, a statewide elected position for 8 years; and I can assure you that under the private health insurance programs, it is the insurance companies that are making the decisions about what medical care will be given to individuals. That is wrong. We did our best in California to stop that. But if you turn Medicare over to the private insurance companies, as the Republicans want to do with their voucher plan, then it will be the insurance companies that will decide what medical services will be available, if at all, to seniors. I'd like to put that aside and go back to the issue that I really wanted to talk about, but there are some things that you just cannot let go, things that are said on the floor that need to be at least discussed in their fullness. Let's talk about jobs. Let's talk about the fact that over the last 30 years we have seen the middle class in America held down. The middle class in America has made very little economic progress over the last 30 years. We're going to discuss that in some detail and specifically what we can do here with public policy, with proposals that have been put forth by the Democratic Caucus in the House and our colleagues in the Senate, solid proposals to put Americans back to work and to rebuild the American Dream so that every American has the opportunity to put their foot on the rung of the ladder and climb just as high as they can do so. Before we get to those rungs on the economic ladder, I'd like to have a more full discussion about what has happened to the middle class over the last 30 years. Joining me in that discussion is the Representative from South Carolina, the Honorable Jim Clyburn. Jim, if you'll join us, I know you have some things you'd like to discuss; and I see you have your own chart there.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Ryan, I thank you so very much for joining us this evening. We're still the strongest, best country in the world. There's no other place like America. And if we begin acting like we can and are a strong, robust, building, growing, dynamic country instead of being weak and pulling ourselves back and saying, Oh, we can't do it; we can't do it--no, we can do it. We can build. We can invest. Every time we invest a dollar in infrastructure, we put Americans back to work and we give them an opportunity to take care of their family, to stay in their home, to provide for their children's education. When we do that, we create the foundation for future economic growth, whether it's education or research or building the infrastructure and making it in America. As we do these things, this agenda is the American agenda, the one that created this country. As you so well said when you opened here: It's the American history. It's there before us. We can do it. We must do it. We owe it to the American people. Mr. Ryan, thank you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Alexander Hamilton and George Washington had it correct: the American Government working with the private sector can make the difference. When we talk about infrastructure, we have an opportunity this year, Congress and the President, to make a huge impact on American jobs. We are going to rewrite, in this session, the Surface Transportation Act for America. Mr. Rahall and I have authored a bill that we hope becomes part of that Surface Transportation Act, that simply says: as we spend the taxpayers' money--this is money that is collected from the gasoline and the diesel excise tax--that that money be spent on American-made steel, concrete, bridges, buses, trains, whatever. It can work. One quick example. In the stimulus bill, there was an opportunity for Amtrak to buy new locomotives, about half a billion dollars to be spent on these new locomotives. In that section of the law, one sentence was added that said, These must be 100 percent American-made. Nobody was making locomotives in America before that, but Siemens, a German corporation, one of the biggest manufacturers in the world, said, Oh, half a billion dollars? We can make locomotives. In America? Sure. In Sacramento, California, they opened a manufacturing plant. There are probably somewhere between 200 and 300 people working there today manufacturing 100 percent American-made locomotives. And on May 13, 3 years after they began this process, the first 100 percent American- made locomotive in probably more than a century rolls onto the tracks of America. We can do this. Mr. Rahall's bill, H.R. 949, will provide that opportunity, American- made, using American taxpayer money. I also have another bill that does the same for solar and wind projects. We can do these things; we just need to put our mind to it and get past this business of austerity. We cannot solve this problem of American jobs with an austerity budget. We've seen it fail in Europe, and we see it failing here in the United States as the long-term unemployment continues to harm 4.5 million Americans that have been out of work for more than 6 months and another 3 million that have been out of work for more than a year. We need an investment strategy, a Make It in America strategy, an investment strategy in those things that create long-term economic growth. Mr. Ryan, I thank you very much for joining us this evening. If you'd like to wrap, and then I'll wrap, and then we'll call it a night.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Oh, it resonated with me just fine--along with a lot of bumps and bruises and cuts and the like. But this is the public-private partnership. This is the role of our government to make these critical investments in education, in research. In fact, one of the Make It in America agenda items is the extension of the research tax credit--a permanent or at least a long extension of it. Representative Carney has introduced House Resolution 905, which would extend that. We have been extending it 1 year at a time, but that doesn't give the businesses the opportunity to plan on a long extension or on a long period of time for research. For example, I was at Genentech in my district. They have a major biopharmaceutical program there--the biggest biopharmaceutical plant in the world. They conduct a lot of research, but the start-stop of the research and the development tax credit makes it difficult for them to plan long into the future. So this piece of legislation, part of the Make It in America agenda, does that extension and gives this certainty to businesses. We also have the infrastructure bank being reintroduced by our colleagues here on the Democratic side. This is one of about two-dozen bills that the Democrats have introduced for the purposes of moving the economy by bringing the manufacturing back home. We also have the Patriot Corporations of America Act, by Representative Schakowsky from Chicago, that rewards companies when they bring the jobs back home. Previously and even today, American corporations can take a tax break for shipping jobs offshore. They don't get a tax break when they bring those jobs back home. We want to reverse that. There is a series of bills. I call the attention of Congress to these bills, the Make It in America agenda, so that we can once again Make It in America, not only make things in America, but Americans can make it--infrastructure, a critical element of this.

Mr. GARAMENDI. You reminded me of my college football career at the University of California, Berkeley, where I was an offensive guard and a defensive tackle, blocking and tackling.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Let me give you an example. The American Public Works Association--these are people with the sanitation systems, the water systems and the like--estimate that 25 percent of all of the fresh-treated water in our municipal water systems is lost to leakage, and they estimate, together with the EPA, that we need to spend over $300 billion immediately to deal with sanitation systems in the United States that are inadequate and $335 billion in drinking water so that we have clean, available drinking water. One more point here: for every billion dollars we spend, you put 28,000 people to work immediately. Those are the engineers, the draftsmen, the architects, the men and women who are operating the equipment, who are back-filling the ditches, laying the pipe. And if we use another strategy that we've developed on the Democratic side called Make It in America--if you use our taxpayer money to buy American-made equipment--then in your district, the steel mills begin once again to produce American-made steel, and all of the pipe and other equipment that's needed can be produced in America, using our money. I love your example of the 1 percent. There have been Democratic proposals--and in fact, the President talked about it here in his state of the Union--about creating an infrastructure bank. If you take that 10-year or 15-year money that the government can borrow at a percent to, maybe, a percent and a half and put it in an infrastructure bank and then loan it to those cities and municipalities and counties and others that need to build these systems--well, let's say we borrowed a percent and a half and that you loaned it out at 1.6 percent--that's enough to pay that back. We circulate that money in our economy, we use that money to buy American-made products, and we get this economy moving. It's there for us. We can do this if only we'd put our minds to it. Set aside for a moment the deficit issue. I said for a moment, not forever. We know we have to deal with the deficit, but you cannot solve that deficit unless you have Americans working, and we can put Americans back to work.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Unsafe.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Ryan, your lesson on American history is right on. We often hear some of our colleagues talk about the Founding Fathers-- the Founding Fathers wouldn't do it this way, they wouldn't do it that way, or they would. It's very interesting that George Washington on becoming President, the first President, went to Alexander Hamilton, his Treasury Secretary, and asked Mr. Hamilton to develop a strategy to grow the American economy. Alexander Hamilton came back with a report 3 or 4 months later, laid out about a dozen different elements, and in that report that Alexander Hamilton brought to President Washington was the genius of what you just described. He said, the Federal Government should provide for infrastructure investment. He didn't call it infrastructure. The Federal Government should build canals, ports, and roads. He also said, the Federal Government should buy American-made products to encourage manufacturing in America. So this is not new. Your recitation of American history down through the line actually began with our very first President, laying out the partnership, the public-private partnership, the Federal Government playing a key role in those investments that create economic growth.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, it's good to be back here for another week of work. We certainly have work to do. Out across this Nation there are a lot of people that are still unemployed, and it's time for Congress to take this extremely important task and to get it done. We've been talking here on the floor for a long time about how we can create jobs in America. The Make It in America agenda that my Democratic colleagues and I have put forth over the last 2\1/2\ years is an extensive number of bills designed to bring jobs back to the United States. And we need them. An article that appeared in the newspapers this last day or so talked about this. This is Paul Krugman talking about the long-term unemployment that we now have here in the United States. He cites that for the last 5 years we've been in a crisis. Unemployment remains elevated, with almost 12 million Americans out of work. But the real striking and huge number is in another category, and that's the long- term unemployment: 4.6 million Americans have been unemployed for more than 6 months, and more than 3 million have been jobless for more than a year. The programs that my Democratic colleagues and I have offered over the last 2\1/2\ years would have gone directly to that problem. He argues that when you have this long-term unemployment, you create a problem that these men and women are not likely to ever get back into the workforce, citing several statistics that are found around the Nation. But we can do something about that, and the Make It in America agenda is exactly what we ought to be working on. Before I go into the specifics of that agenda, I'd like to cover one other issue. This is seen in a report from the International Monetary Fund that they just came out with in the last couple of days warning the United States to be very careful about continued reductions in our budget. They argue that the austerity program that the United States has actually been on for the last 2 years--now, remember, immediately after President Obama became President the United States took on a stimulus program, an enormous stimulus program of a little over $700 billion. That actually created the start of the rebirth of the American economy, but it only lasted for a year, a year and a half. Then we undertook, at the behest of my Republican colleagues, an austerity program, one that involved seriously reducing the Federal budget. Over the decades, beginning in 2011, we will see a nearly $2 trillion reduction in Federal expenditures in the 10-year period. That is what austerity is all about. Today, if you were trying to get on an airplane somewhere in the United States, you were beginning to see yet one more effect of austerity, and that is the air traffic controllers going on furlough, so that 1 day out of 10 air traffic controllers will not be working, meaning that there will be a shortage. Some say, well, they should have moved the money around and they could have done it some other way, but that's not the way the austerity program is in the United States, and that's not the way the sequestration law is written. Sequestration is across-the-board cuts, expenditure item by expenditure item, with no--or very little--authority to shift money from one lower priority to a higher priority. Therefore, today, the air traffic controllers, some were not working. There was a general slowdown of air traffic across the United States resulting in some of my colleagues not getting to work today to vote on the three bills that we had up here on the floor just a few moments ago. In any case, the IMF warns: U.S. austerity will slow growth. This was a warning that was issued to the United States. It was also issued earlier to the United Kingdom, who have been on a very serious austerity budget for the last 3 years. The result is that the United Kingdom has actually seen a shrinking in their economy, as has most of Europe. Austerity did not work in Europe as an effort to deal with the downturn of the economy and the Great Recession, and it certainly is not working here. We need to create jobs in the United States. A rational economic strategy would say that when you have a general decline in the economy caused by a lack of consumer spending, then it is time for the government to step in and to provide support for the economy. We can do that in a way that actually is an investment strategy. This is where I would like to take this conversation. Instead of talking about austerity and cut, cut, cut at the Federal level to deal with the deficit--an issue that, indeed, we must deal with, but that's a long-term issue that we have to get about--but we have a short-term crisis right now with employment and the lack of demand here in the United States. So, what do we do about it? Well, first of all, we end sequestration; give a rational way for the government agencies to address the $85 billion of cuts that are taking place in the next 6 months--better yet, to put that off into the future. Let those cuts occur in the years 4, 5, 6, 7, out in the future rather than right now, when what we ought to be doing is increasing the government expenditure on key investments, like keeping the airplanes in the sky, like keeping the men and women who are at my Air Force base in Travis, continuing to provide the support that the Air Force needs in moving men and equipment out of Afghanistan, and shifting those budget cuts off to the future. I hope that happens. I have asked my colleagues, and certainly the President has asked for this to happen. We'll see if my colleagues here are ready to do that. So, what do we do in the meantime? It's about investments, those kind of Federal Government expenditures that actually will create immediate jobs as well as long-term economic growth. There are several, and I'll go through them very, very quickly. First, education. The most important investment that any economy will make, any society will make is the investment in education. And it's not just K-12; it's the higher education system, a doctorate education, as well as the retraining of those long-term unemployed who need to be prepared for the jobs of today and tomorrow, not the jobs of yesterday. So that's the education. The second piece of it is research. It's the foundation of future economic growth. You need to have a robust research program if you intend for your economy to stay ahead. Fortunately, America has had such an agenda for a long time. However, the sequestration cuts--for example, $45 million out of research at the University of California- Davis in just the next 6 months--that means layoffs, layoffs of technicians and others who are involved in those research programs. And it means that those research efforts will not come to fruition in the near future. They will be delayed, and the benefit of them will not be seen for some time. Some of this is real jobs right away. For example, some of that research has to do with bioherbicides and biopesticides. These are naturally occurring organisms that occur somewhere in the environment. They are discovered, they are brought back to the laboratory and grown and become a bioherbicide or a biopesticide. Research in that area is clearly going to be delayed as a result of sequestration. So let's delay the sequestration, put it off in the future years so that we can grow the economy today. The third element of economic growth is in the area of infrastructure. You have to have infrastructure. This is about moving Americans across our landscape. This is about our ports, our highways, our airports, and other critical elements in the transportation infrastructure. We know that we are woefully behind on meeting the infrastructure needs. Probably eight out of 10 bridges in the United States are deficient. We know that our highways are filled with potholes and don't measure up to the standards that we would want, simply for the protection of our automobiles' suspension systems. We know that there is far more to infrastructure than just highways and ports and airports. For example, the Mississippi River is flooding. So what is the status of levees in the United States? Well, the status of levees in the United States is not good. In my district, I have more than 1,200 miles of levees, and many of them are insufficient to protect the people who live on the land side of the levees, the farms and the cities. One of the most dangerous cities in the United States is Sacramento, California. It ranks number two after New Orleans. We need to have that levee repaired, yet the Army Corps of Engineers is taking a $250 million cut in its levee budget and in the projects that it does in deepening the ports and maintaining the ports. It makes no sense that at a time when we know there is severe flooding, even to this day along the Mississippi, that we would take $250 million out of the Army Corps of Engineers budget. But that's precisely what is happening with sequestration. Infrastructure goes beyond that. I'm going to come back to infrastructure in a few moments, but I see I'm joined by one of my colleagues. I'll just rapidly finish with the other two elements in a program for building the American economy. The final two elements are manufacturing. You have to make things. I'll come back and talk about that in a few moments. And the final element is you must change. The economy is changing, people have to change with the economy, our education system, our infrastructure. All of these require that we are willing to change. Now, my colleague from the great State of Ohio, please, share with us your thoughts on sequestration, jobs and what we can do here in the United States to put people back to work.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. If I might interrupt you for a second, there are those that would claim that this place is also a windy Chamber.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Blumenauer, I would be honored to participate in this conversation. And, Mr. Speaker, it's always a great pleasure and, in fact, important that those of us 435 that have been elected to represent the American citizens rise on the floor to speak to issues of great importance. When all is debated, at the end of those debates I suppose we ought to say, Was that important? We debated earlier about a piece of this puzzle, but this is the most consequential issue facing the entire globe. Climate change is a very, very real challenge for the human race. In the early nineties, I was Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior and was asked by the President and Vice President at the time to join in developing a strategy for America at the Kyoto Conference, which was the second international effort to come to grips with this issue. We studied the various ramifications of climate change and we predicted that what you just described in your opening statement, Mr. Blumenauer, would happen. And, indeed, it is happening-- the climate is changing. It is warmer. There are more extreme events, and the impact is already being perceived in those things that are most unnoticed, which is the change in the vegetation and in the flora and fauna throughout the United States. As you hike through the mountains of the Sierras, you have to go a little higher to see species, both animal and fauna, that lived at a lower elevation. They're moving up the mountain, those that can. Those that can't, for example, some species of trees and plants that aren't able to remove their roots and move up the mountain, and they're simply going to become extinct. Now, what do we do about it? Well, there are many things we can do without actually harming the economy. In fact, there are many things we can do that will cause the economy to grow, for example, conservation. Conservation of energy is an enormously important way to conserve our money, our energy supplies, and reduce carbon emissions, because much of the energy in the United States actually comes from carbon emissions. For example, how about better mileage in our cars? Thankfully, we have President Obama and the Democratic administration that has taken very aggressive steps to reduce the consumption of gasoline and diesel in our automobiles and trucks, thereby conserving and saving us money and simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emission. There are many, many other things. One bill we took up on the floor today that passed--and my amendment wasn't adopted--but, nonetheless, it is the small hydro. It's using hydropower wisely where we can, without harming the environment, but also adding to the energy production. Moving away from coal, which we know to be the single biggest source of carbon from power plants as we generate electricity, moving initially to gas-fired power plants, which have significantly less carbon emissions, and in that process, taking the steps to move to renewable power sources of all kinds--hydro, where it makes sense. How about wind turbines? I don't have the statistics with me today, but we've made an enormous advancement in wind energy and solar energy. And by the way, if we're going to do that in the United States with our tax policies and give a tax rebate or credit, then we ought to make it in America. Have those turbines and solar panels made in America so that we not only do what is right by the environment, but we also do what it right by the American workers so that we can rebuild our American manufacturing. There are many, many other concepts, all of which grow the economy. They don't harm the economy at all but, rather, grow the economy. Reducing emissions, not only carbon emissions, but from the coal-fired power plants, reducing rather dangerous substances like mercury and arsenic. So we should move these things forward. Unfortunately, we are running up against a block of votes on the right side of this House--not right on policy but, rather, in location--where they are blocking the efforts that we must make to come to grips with this. My point here is that, while this is a fundamental problem for this Nation, it's also a fundamental opportunity for America to grow a new economy. We just heard read here on the floor not more than 30 minutes ago the statement by the President of his new budget in which he makes the point that, by addressing climate change, we also address the need to rebuild the American economy and to set it on a path where we can compete and sell these technologies and products all around the world. Because this is not just an American problem, this is a national- international problem, and all of us, wherever we are, whatever country we are in, we must take action. We must take action. We cannot let this slide. And my plea, as you made yours, Mr. Blumenauer, to our Republicans colleagues is: let's debate this. If you don't believe this is a problem, come to the floor and tell us why this is not a problem. If you do not believe that we should manufacture wind turbines and solar panels here in the United States and deploy them rather than continuing with the coal-based economy, then tell us why. I wait for that debate, and I'll join you in it, Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you for the privilege of joining you. I see that we have another colleague. We may reopen the West Coast-East Coast show, Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. GARAMENDI. I suspect that, Mr. Speaker, all of us would want to see more jobs in America. The great American manufacturing sector over the last 20 years has lost about 9 million jobs. Twenty-five years ago, no one throughout this world would doubt that the greatest manufacturing Nation in the world was America. Twenty-five years later, and 9 million jobs having been lost, America has lost its preeminence-- or is about to lose its preeminence. It would seem to me it's our job here as representatives of the American public and the American economy to do everything we possibly can to rebuild and reestablish the great American manufacturing sector, to do everything we can to restore to America those 9 million middle class jobs that have been lost to outsourcing, to our companies moving overseas, and to some rather impractical and rather foolish laws that have been passed and are on the books. There is something we can do today with this bill. This bill, while seeming to be small, ought to be our very first step this session to make sure that in every piece of legislation we pass there would be an incentive, an obligation, or an advantage for American manufacturers. Small hydro, who's to care about small hydro? Well, there are four businesses in America that would care a great deal about small hydro. In New Mexico, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District develops low-cost small hydro. Canyon Hydro in Deming, Washington, manufactures and produces small hydro. NATEL Energy Company in Alameda, California, manufactures small hydro programs. And James Leffel & Company in Springfield, Ohio, manufactures the machinery for small hydro. This bill would provide an opportunity for these four American companies to build these small hydro projects, made in America, made by Americans. The amendment that I'm proposing simply says, in addition to what is in this bill, that we add a simple paragraph that says: In all practical purposes, the machinery that is to be constructed and used in these projects shall be made in America by American workers. One small step, but a necessary step, and one step along the way to rebuilding the American manufacturing sector. We can do this. There are those who say that, well, we're not making it. Well, we are making it. And when we write laws that require that it be made in America, guess what? Things are made in America. In that stimulus bill--whatever you may think it, good or bad--there was a provision written in that Amtrak was to have some new locomotives. Someone put in an additional sentence that said these must be 100 percent made in America. Siemens, the German company, came forward and said: We can do that. And in Sacramento, California today, a half-billion-dollar contract is being executed for numerous electric locomotives for Amtrak, 100 percent American made. We can establish the policies to make it in America and to rebuild the great American manufacturing sector. We ought to be using all of our tax money whenever we purchase something to be made in America. If we're going to subsidize solar panels or wind turbines or even hydro projects, then let it be American manufacturers that get that money--to be made in America. Simple, but it's up to us. It's up to 435 of us. What is to be our policy? Are we going to encourage American manufacturing with something as simple as this amendment, or are we simply going to shrug our shoulders and ignore the fact that 9 million American manufacturing jobs have been lost? Are we to ignore our responsibility to bring those jobs back here? I don't think there's one of us among the 435 of us here, Mr. Speaker, that would say: not to worry, let it be. No, I think all of us, Mr. Speaker, would want to bring the American manufacturing jobs back. This amendment--which would be the final amendment to the bill and which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee--this amendment, if adopted, would proceed immediately to passage and give to American workers a small but significant opportunity to have a well- paying middle class job and once again America being the undisputed leader in manufacturing. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm opposed in its current form.

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address an empty House, but perhaps a few are watching C-SPAN. We've just heard a fascinating 4-hour discussion on economic policy. A fundamental part of our work here in Congress is to set the economic policy for the United States. As we listened to that 4-hour debate and discussion, there were a lot of charts and a lot of economic theory on both sides: small government versus an active, investing government; the growth of taxes, or the lack thereof; a discussion about jobs and the like. I'd like to first start my discussion this evening on what we ought to be doing. That is the purpose of all of this. I harken back to the 1930s, a period of time when the Nation was in a very serious Depression, unemployment was rampant, and there was a lot of pain and suffering throughout this Nation. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the President at the time. Today, we are in a somewhat better situation, but still there's a lot of pain, a lot of unemployment, and a lot of families in desperate situations. Back in the thirties, Franklin Delano Roosevelt put forth his New Deal. He articulated--at least a part of it--with what I call ``The Test.'' He 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 little. That's a value statement. That's a statement about how he saw the role of government, and I agree with him. Our task here today, as we debate tomorrow and the next 2 days what the economic policy of America will be, we ought to harken back to what Franklin D. Roosevelt said in the 1930s: ``The test of our progress.'' ``The test of our progress.'' What are we to do? Are we to follow policies that would enrich the wealthy even more? And we have one such proposal before us; it's the Ryan Republican budget. It would slash the top tax rate from 39 percent to 25 percent and add another quarter of a million dollars of income annually to those who are making over 400--or over $1 million a year. I think that goes counter to what Franklin Roosevelt said: The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much. The remaining portion of that proposal by Mr. Ryan would put a greater burden on the working men and women and the poor, and it's done in two ways. One way is to remove those tax write-offs that the middle- income, that the working men and women have, significantly reducing those and cutting off those programs that people without jobs depend upon--from unemployment insurance to food stamps and to other benefits that they have--so much so that their actual tax burden would rise by somewhere between $2,000 to $3,000 a year. Franklin Roosevelt said the test of our progress is ``whether we provide enough for those who have little.'' So if we are to believe that our role in government is to provide, to assist, to help, to bring up those who have little--the men and women who are unemployed, the families that have lost their homes, those who are searching for a well-paying job--if that is the test of our progress, if that is our value and our purpose, then I think we'd better think about a different economic policy than is presented to us by the Republicans. I would like to spend some time discussing that this evening. First of all, there's an immediate situation in which the sequestration--which I have voted repeatedly to end, and many of my colleagues have also--is inherent in the Republican proposal. That sequestration will bring pink slips to 750,000 Americans in this year, the 2013 year; 750,000 Americans will lose their jobs. So if the test of our progress is to help those who have little, well, the Republican budget adds 750,000 people to those who will have very little. They would lose their job. So why would we do this? Why would we do any economic policy that would add 750,000 people to the unemployment rolls? It makes no sense if you want to grow the economy. If you want to reduce your tax revenues and increase your deficit, I suppose this is one way to do it, but it's not a very good way. I will tell you that in my district, at Travis Air Force Base, where men and women are going to lose their jobs, where 20 percent of their pay will be cut, it's a very serious problem for our Nation's defense. Because from that Air Force base, the big C-5As and the C-17s that carry men and women and equipment across this globe to fight our wars, to protect our Nation, they will be sitting on the ground. They will not be doing their training. They will not be prepared to carry out their task in defending this Nation. Why would we do that? It makes no sense to me. Whether it has to do with the test of our progress or our values or our Nation's defense, why would we want to move a policy that would send 750,000 people through the unemployment lines? It makes no sense to me at all. I was home in my district this last weekend and I was talking to some elderly people that attended one of my meetings. They were asking me, Is it true that you guys are going to cut Medi-Cal?--which is the Medicaid program in California. I said, No, not us guys; but, yes, there is a proposal in Congress to seriously cut Medicaid, and therefore Medi-Cal. They said, Don't they understand that that's how my husband is supported in the nursing home? What are we to do if those cuts force him out of the nursing home? Well, the reality is that that could happen, because we have a budget on the floor that 435 of us will be voting on in the next couple of days that actually will reduce the Medicaid--and, therefore, Medi-Cal in California--by a third, a third cut. Therefore, that lady who was concerned about her husband's care in the nursing home will find a problem. She and perhaps many, many others--not perhaps, definitely--many other senior citizens are going to find their opportunity to have care in a nursing home removed. It's a very serious issue because who are those people that are going to see their Medi-Cal, or across this Nation, Medicaid support significantly reduced by one-third? Well, here they are. Two-thirds of them are seniors and people with disabilities. We're not talking about welfare and all that goes with that. We're talking about seniors and men and women in this Nation that have such disabilities that they cannot care for themselves. These are the people that are going to be hurt. Another 20 percent of them are children. Why? Why would this House vote for a budget that would harm seniors, the disabled and children? Why would we do that? Perhaps the argument that you heard over the last 4 hours is, well, we need to deal with the deficit. Yes, we do. But do we need to deal with it in this way, that we go after seniors, we go after people with disabilities that cannot care for themselves and children and take it to them? And at the very same time in the very same piece of legislation give the superwealthy an additional, extraordinarily large amount of money that the average worker in the United States would have to work 5 to 6 years to equal the tax reduction given to those who are earning a million dollars? And for those that are earning a billion dollars, it is add three to four more zeros to their tax reduction. Why would we do that? It makes no sense. It is not the American value. It's not what FDR said should be the test of our progress-- seniors, children and disabled. Why would we do that? When you look at that budget and you look at that proposal a little more, what do you see? The seniors, not those who are in nursing homes without income, but seniors, the average senior. The average senior in the United States has a median annual income of $22,800--median. Half of the seniors in this Nation have an annual income of less than $22,800. Half of them have more than that. So where are we with the proposal that we'll be voting on in the next couple of days from our Republican colleagues? It is a proposal that will end the Medicare program as we know it, and all Americans who are not yet 55 years of age will never see the Medicare guarantee that is available to those Americans that are now 65 and 55 years or older, the Medicare guarantee of a health care program that has, since its inception in 1964, taken nearly all of the seniors in this Nation out of poverty when together with Social Security. Before there was Medicare in 1964, there was rampant poverty among seniors. I've said on this floor before, and I'll say it again tonight, one of the searing memories in my mind was a trip when my father took me to the county hospital in Calaveras County in the 1950s to visit my neighbor, a rancher, who could no longer take care of himself. He didn't have the money, he was poor, and he wound up in the county hospital. There was a ward, perhaps 20 seniors in the worst possible condition without adequate medical care, simply lined up bed to bed to die. What are we doing here? What are we doing? Why would we set up a program to end one of the most important, valuable programs to every American citizen? That is the promise of Medicare, a comprehensive medical program for them to take care of their health in their senior years. Why would we end that and turn it over to the health insurance industry? Now, I was the insurance commissioner in California for 8 years. I know the health insurance industry, and I know their number one purpose: it's profit. They continually will put profit before people, and yet the proposal that is given to us by the Republican majority is to take every American under the age of 55 and give them a voucher so that they can go to those rapacious health insurance companies and try to get an adequate health insurance policy. The guarantees that are in the Affordable Care Act would be wiped out by their legislation. The guarantees of an adequate insurance program, the end of discrimination based upon age and preexisting conditions, gone, wiped out. What are they thinking? What are they thinking? Do they understand what the American senior is going through? I think not. I think not. When you consider who those seniors are, I don't understand. I do not understand. Now, there's an alternative, there's an alternative put forward by our Democrats on this side. You've heard it discussed here in the previous 4 hours. It is an equivalent that is a reflection of the basic American value of taking care of each other, of helping each other, the value of a community, a small community perhaps like I live in in California, the community of Walnut Grove, or the large community of all of us, over 300 million Americans, where we care for each other, where we test our progress by making sure that all of us are lifted up, not just the superwealthy, not just those who have everything they could possibly need--I understand they may want more--but rather to provide the basic needs of these who have nothing or little--health care, food, shelter, and clothing. That's where we're coming from. We do it in a way that actually reduces the deficit over time, brings back into a reasonable balance the annual appropriations and the revenues of this government, does it in a way that meets the needs of this generation and future generations, does it in a way that makes the critical investments that grow the economy, rather than stifle the economy by pulling out of the economy, as our Republican colleagues would, the essential elements of economic growth. There are five of them. I've talked about this for more than 25 years in California and beyond. Those critical investments in present and future economic growth are simple, but they are powerful, and they are absolutely necessary. They are education, research, infrastructure, manufacturing--making things here in America--and change. Those are the five elements. And now that we're here at the Federal level, we must add to that our Nation's security, defense and others. Let me put a couple of things up here. Growing the economy: growing the economy requires that we invest in infrastructure. This is both immediate and long term. When we invest in infrastructure, we put people to work now. We can do this. Men and women and companies and contractors are ready to go to work. The skilled labor force is there. All they need is for this government to fund a substantial infrastructure program, and that's precisely what the Democratic budget does. It adds $50 billion now to the appropriations for this year and creates an infrastructure bank so that we can have a public-private partnership to build those infrastructure programs that have a cash flow: sanitation projects, water projects, toll bridges, toll roads, airports. Many of the infrastructure programs that this Nation desperately needs can be financed with an infrastructure bank. For those that cannot be financed with a public-private partnership, we can and we must use our general fund revenue to build the infrastructure. For every dollar we invest in infrastructure, we immediately return to the economy $1.57. Don't take my word for it. Take Mark Zandi's word, an economist for Moody's Analytics. Nobody has debated that point. So why don't we invest in the infrastructure? When we do so, we will be safer. We'll have safer airports; our roads will be safer, they'll be paved; and the potholes, not all will disappear, but over time. We will improve our highway system. And our bridges, many of which are deemed to be insufficient and unsafe, can be repaired and rebuilt. And in the process, we've laid the foundation for future economic growth. On the education side, it is exactly the same. On the education side, if we educate our children, if we have the best education program in the world, something very good will happen to this Nation. First, we will be competitive. If we fail to educate our workforce, there is no way that we can be competitive. Yet, the budget being proposed by our Republican majority slashes the education programs in this Nation. And for those who are in college or have graduated, they would double the interest rates on student loans. What are they thinking? On the other hand, our Democratic budget would actually increase funding this year for education, keeping teachers in the classroom, giving schools the opportunity to improve. In the infrastructure program, there are facilities and the opportunity in higher education to continue to keep students in school. For those who need additional training in the work programs, the Workforce Investment program would be augmented, and we would be able to provide the upgrade in skills and education for those who are unemployed so that they would have a chance to get a job in a growing economy. We envision a growing economy where jobs are created. We know that this year the difference between the budget that we're proposing and the budget that our Republican colleagues are proposing is a difference of 1.2 million jobs. With the continuation of the sequestration, 750,000 jobs will be lost. We end that. That's 750,000 on the plus side. And with the investments in education and infrastructure, we would add another 400,000 to 500,000 jobs. That's 1.2 million jobs. There's a big difference here: Americans going back to work and Americans being laid off. We also know that the future economy demands that this Nation become and continue to be the most aggressive, robust research Nation in the world. We are today. No one, no other country, no other university in any other country can match the research that's done in the United States. It is that research that has kept this economy ahead, has kept us moving forward, yet here again we see a departure in how to grow this economy, how to create jobs. Our budget, our proposal would continue to fund the research programs and, in fact, augment them more than what is currently available in today's appropriations. On the other hand, there are slashes to the research budget. Today, farmers from my district, today researchers at the University of California at Davis, today the head of the Northern California Resource Conservation District organization came to my office and said, We need your help. We need your help to deal with a very real problem in California. Over the years for a variety of reasons, the aquifers, the underground water tables of California have been contaminated with nitrates, nitrates from the farm, nitrates from fertilizer, dairies and the rest. There is a requirement, in fact a necessity, to reduce that contamination and, in fact, to eliminate it. However, in order to do so, fundamental research in the way in which plants take up nitrogen needs to be undertaken so that the nitrogen fertilizer that is applied to the fields matches the amount of nitrogen that the plants actually need. And that varies from soil condition to soil condition. Yet, in the budget that's been proposed by our Republican colleagues, there is a $45 million diminution, reduction in the available research money at the University of California at Davis, critical research needed by farmers so that they don't unnecessarily fertilize their fields, so that they accurately match the needs of their plants to the amount of fertilizer they apply. In so doing, they reduce the contamination that is a serious health problem in many parts of California. Which path do we go on? Do we invest in energy research critical to this Nation? It was, in fact, past research conducted by the United States Government, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Energy that created the knowledge and the techniques for fracking, which has opened up a vast resource through this Nation, a gas resource, natural gas resources, as well as oil. Research is fundamental: energy research, agricultural research, research in health care, research in the way in which we conduct our communications system. All of these things are fundamental, yet a choice will be made in the next few days which path we go on. The fourth point I wanted to make is this: Manufacturing. Manufacturing matters. Manufacturing is where the middle class is. Manufacturing is where we built the great American middle class, making things, cars, refrigerators and the more advanced things such as high- speed trains and the like. We need to return this Nation to a manufacturing Nation. This is the creation of wealth. Using research, new products, new technologies, new ways in which we can make things, advanced manufacturing technology, we can rebuild the great American manufacturing sector. We lost 9 million manufacturing jobs in the last 20 to 25 years. America can't afford that. We need tax policies. We need policies that encourage manufacturing in the United States. It was 2\1/2\ years ago that we passed legislation that eliminated many of the tax breaks that corporations had to offshore jobs. We need to finish that job. The President said clearly in his State of the Union message we need to provide tax breaks for on-shoring, bringing those jobs back to America, and end the remaining tax breaks that corporations get for off-shoring. In so doing, we build our economy and we help to balance the budget by bringing tax revenues back to this Nation. Manufacturing matters. Billions of dollars of our tax money are spent every year on goods and services, many of which are not made in America. Why in the world would we spend our tax dollars on steel that's manufactured in China to build the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge? This is 43 million tons of steel, maybe 3,000 to 6,000 jobs in China, not in the United States--American tax money spent. It goes on and on. We need a strong Make It in America, Buy It in America policy so that our tax money is spent on American-made products and services, not on foreign made. Now, if you want to spend your own money out there, fine--buy whatever you want to buy--but if you're going to spend American taxpayer money, then we should spend that money on American- made equipment. That is precisely the policy that we are offering here in the United States as we move our infrastructure programs forward and as we move forward with our energy development--our solar and our wind and other advanced energy systems. It is to use our tax money to build American manufacturing, once again, here in our Nation. So manufacturing matters, and we will Make It in America when, once again, it is made in America. It is very fundamental. So these are the things: education, infrastructure, research, manufacturing, and change. We have to be willing to change in many, many of our policies. How can we pay for this? Here is one novel idea. We can end those tax breaks that are given to individuals and to corporations that are no longer necessary. The oil industry over the last decade earned $1 trillion in profit. This is the Big Five. It's not all the small ones. It would be much higher if you added the small ones. We are in the midst of an energy boom right now--oil, natural gas. We are producing more energy of natural gas and oil than we have in the last two or three decades. Also, the oil companies are doing pretty well, yet they continue to receive billions of dollars a year--perhaps as much as $5 billion, $4 billion for the Big Five in the oil industry--of your tax money to support them as their profits have added up to over $1 trillion. This is just the Big Five in the last decade. Why would we do that? Why would we continue to use our tax money to support the oil industry? They get enough at the pump from us. They don't need a tax break. Let's take that tax break, turn it around and put it into tomorrow's energy systems, into supporting the green technologies--the solar, the wind, the conservation programs, the electric car systems, the batteries that will power those systems in the future--as we transition our economy from where we were to where we must be in the future. That's just one example of the tax breaks that are not necessary, and there are numerous other ones. Why would we give Wall Street hedge fund billionaires an additional tax break where their real income--I mean, not capital gains, but their earned income--is taxed at capital gains rates rather than at an income tax rate? Why would we do that? We should end those kinds of tax breaks that are not necessary for economic growth and shift that money into deficit reduction or into assisting those future industries that we need to have or, perhaps, into research or education. These are all strategies for the future, and they affect my communities that I represent. The infrastructure programs are crucial to my communities. I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River. The second-most flood prone part of this Nation, the second-most at-risk cities in this Nation are in my district. One proposal would reduce the infrastructure money needed to upgrade the levees to provide the protection for human life and property. Another proposal is to invest in infrastructure. One proposal is to cause layoffs and to take out those civil servants who are working in the Army Corps of Engineers and to say, For 20 percent of the time, you're going to be furloughed; you're not going to work. So the Army Corps of Engineers' work necessary to design, to oversee and to push forward the projects that I need in my district in order to protect my citizens will be delayed. It will be delayed through the next storm season. We pray we won't have a flood, but why should we even have to pray when our proposal on the Democratic side would fully fund those civilians in the Army Corps of Engineers who are necessary to push forward the projects to protect Sacramento, to protect Marysville, to protect Yuba City, and to provide the money--the Federal share of the cost--of rebuilding and upgrading those levees? I'm not the only place in this Nation that is faced with that. We saw recently Superstorm Sandy, and we know the horrible impact that that had on New Jersey, New York, and the surrounding areas. We need to rebuild. We need to put that infrastructure in place because we know there will be additional superstorms in the future. We are looking at a fundamental policy here, a fundamental question of our values as Americans. Are we going to have an investment strategy that grows the American economy and puts people back to work and protects Americans? Whether they are poor or impoverished, whether they are children or seniors, are we going to put in place policies that meet their basic needs? And for those future seniors, will they have the promise of Medicare? That is a question before the House of Representatives that in the next 3 days will be answered. I pray and I work with my colleagues to see to it that we have a growth agenda, that we have an agenda of jobs, that we have an agenda to care for those who have little, and that we honor this value: 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my remaining time.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Jiro Jerry Kaneko, who passed away on January 18th, 2013 at the age of 88. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the service and contributions of Dr. Kaneko to his country, his immediate community and the field of veterinary medicine. Jerry Kaneko led a life of service and dedication that has made him an inspiring role model in our community. Dr. Kaneko was the son of Japanese immigrants who operated a family farm in French Camp, CA. Shortly after Jerry completed high school, the family was ordered to a World War II internment camp in Arizona. Even when faced with the injustice and humiliation of internment and loss of the Kaneko family farm, Jerry Kaneko joined the United States Army and at the end of the war served in occupied Japan. After returning from the war, Dr. Kaneko entered UC Davis where he graduated with a doctorate in veterinary medicine and an another doctorate in comparative biochemistry. Dr. Kaneko was invited to join the faculty of the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine where he co- authored a seminal textbook that is now in its sixth edition, has been translated into several languages and serves as a standard reference in the field. Dr. Kaneko's research and instruction has reached institutions of veterinary science around the world. Even as an Emeritus Professor, he remained active in international veterinary research, writing, speaking and consulting in international scientific societies. In retirement Dr. Kaneko became active in public service. In 1994 he was elected to the Davis City Council for a term of four years. He served on the Area Four Agency on Aging Advisory Board and the Board of Directors for Davis Community Meals & Shelter, among a number of organizations, representing his community on the local and state levels. Shortly before his passing Dr. Kaneko received a Board of Directors Recognition Award from the Yolo County Mexican-American Concilio, an organization that provides educational scholarships and grants to students in need. In every endeavor Jerry Kaneko was revered for his generosity, quick smile and infectious enthusiasm. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize a man who had a powerful positive impact on his profession and his community. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Dr. Kaneko's life and many achievements.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly. The President has proposed a balanced approach to sequestration, as well as to the long-term deficit plan, a combination of additional revenues, many of them from closing loopholes, and also some very wise cuts. There are things that can be done in Medicare. I talked earlier about the prescription drug benefit. But there's also the way in which Medicare is organized. The fee-for- service system encourages additional and often unnecessary procedures. There's a lot of fraud in the system. We need to deal with that. And the Affordable Care Act, interestingly enough, went right after every one of those, yet they want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. What are they thinking? We know the Affordable Care Act works. We know that the inflation rate in Medicare, since the Affordable Care Act went into effect, has dropped precipitously. It's still growing, but it's growing slower than the general health care inflation rate in the Nation.

Mr. GARAMENDI. In decades. But we're seeing the changes. The Affordable Care Act, a major part of that is an annual well person visit to the doctor, so critically important. Why? What's your blood pressure? How's your sugar? What's happening in your life? Can we prevent you from getting diabetes? Can we give you some really--some cheap pills to keep your blood pressure down, or are we going to have the blood pressure go up so you get a stroke and pay big-time for years and years with disabilities and medical care? So the Affordable Care Act has the right incentives in it to bend the cost curve. And it is. It is actually working.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I notice that our time is nearly over. If you'd like a few closing comments, I'm going to end in just a few moments, too.

Mr. GARAMENDI. From Washington, D.C., your leadership in this community has been known for some time. I thank you very much for joining us tonight. I want to do two things before I end. First of all, Medicare is back on the table. The Ryan budget takes up Medicare once again and provides a voucher which will basically destroy it. I used this last time around. I'm going to change this. It says, Medicare 1965--that was President Johnson--until 2013; created by LBJ, destroyed by the GOP. I don't think so. Seniors don't want it. Americans don't want it. In the last campaign for the Presidency, this was one of the major issues, and yet Mr. Ryan is coming back with it. Bad idea, bad timing. I want to end with this. This is a great country. There is no other place in the world like the United States. It is one terrific country. There's enormous energy in this country, the energy where people want to get a job, they want to go to work, businesses want to grow, and they want to hire people. All of that is waiting for Congress to get its act together, to get the sequestration out of the way, which is an austerity budget that has 750,000 jobs to be lost in it, get that out of the way. Look at the balanced proposal, as the President has suggested. End some tax loopholes. Make some cuts. Make wise, thoughtful cuts. And it's possible. It can be done, and it should be done. Along the way, we can grow the economy. We can, once again, ``Make it in America.'' Because when we make things in America, when we use our tax money to buy American-made equipment, supplies, and products, we're creating jobs here. We're putting people back to work. George Washington said we ought to do it. Alexander Hamilton as Treasury Secretary said we ought to do it. And we, the Democrats, say we ought to do this. We ought to have a buy American. Mr. Rahall, the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has made it clear that, as a major part of the new transportation bill, there's going to be a major ``Make it in America'' component so that we're buying American-made goods once again. He's supported by every one of the ranking members of every subcommittee, and I add myself to that list. For the last 3 years, I've carried specific bills that say our tax money, transportation tax money, would be used to buy American trucks, buses, bridges, and steel made here in America. If you're going to put up a solar panel on your house or a wind turbine and you expect a subsidy--and you should have one--then it should be an American-made solar panel or wind turbine. We can make it in America when Americans, once again, make it. So, that's our message. Our message is to be wise about the cuts. Yes, we're going to make cuts. Balance it with appropriate revenue increases, which should be basically the elimination of many of the unnecessary subsidies that go out even to American corporations still receiving subsidies for offshoring jobs. No more. The President was right. Give a break to American companies that bring jobs back to the United States. All of this is possible. This is what we are here for, 435 of us in the House of Representatives, to set policy. Mr. Delaney talked about education, technology, energy policy, and we were joined this evening by our other friends, Mr. Higgins from New York, Mr. Ryan from Ohio, and Ms. Norton from Washington, D.C. It's been a good evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. When are we going to do it? We can do these things. We can do the wind turbines for the clean energy, as Mr. Delaney was talking about, solar panels, and, of course, the transportation systems, which we're discussing here.