John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. You couldn't be more correct. You used the word ``holistic,'' meaning whole and in total, a total package. For years I've said that to have a growing economy and a just social environment, we needed to make, as Americans, critical investments. You hit three of those critical investments. You talked about research--absolutely critical investment in the future growth of the economy and to solve today and tomorrow's problems. That's research, most of which, interestingly, is funded either directly by the Federal Government through the National Institutes of Health or Defense Research Agency, DARPA, or one of the other Federal agencies, or indirectly through the research tax credit that we provide for businesses to engage in research. So research is one of the key investments that lead to economic growth. You mentioned the second one, very interesting, and that's education. A well educated workforce will be competitive across the world. That's a critical, perhaps the most critical, investment. Again, a role for the Federal Government, certainly a role for States and local governments, but a role for the American society that cannot be ignored--research, education. You drew it very, very correctly, and that is the manufacturing that comes from that. Manufacturing matters. How do you do that? You need to be in front of it; and when you talked about the research and the manufacturing technology, you were spot on. That's the third critical investment. The fourth one we also talked about here is infrastructure. So these are four of the critical investments that we need to make as a society. Some of that falls on individual companies, encouraged by a research tax credit or encouraged by Buy America. In different ways, we can encourage the manufacturing tax policy, which is critically important. We did that. Actually, it was a Democratic proposal. We did it 3 years ago. We've continued it. We've continued it in the recent fiscal cliff legislation where we provided 100 percent write-off for capital investment. That was from the Democrats. We care about business, and so we said, grow your business. We will provide you with a 100 percent write-off in the first year of capital equipment that you put in place. Not depreciation over 3, 4, 7, 15 years, but rather immediate, an enormous benefit to business. So we want the businesses to invest so that they can Make It in America. There are two more critical elements. I'll go through them very, very quickly. Provide for the national defense wisely. I think the public knows by now that we're spending $100 billion in Afghanistan this year--$100 billion. We need to bring it back home. We need to end that war. Thankfully, the President has set us off on a course where we will end American offensive action and move to supporting the Afghan Government in the spring of this year. Mr. President, we're thankful that you put that policy. Now let's bring the rest of it home, $100 billion. We need that money here. So we need national defense, but we need to be really wise about how we spend our money. Finally, the fifth thing is this: we need to change. We need to be willing to change. Thank you for bringing up the first three of those. But this is how we invest in the future, and these are policies that we need to put forward. They're the critical foundation for economic and social growth.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Last year, you and I talked--or last Congress, which was last year, you and I talked about this Make It in America, this manufacturing. We spent a lot of time talking about it. I had introduced in that session of Congress legislation that would require that our tax money--at least 85 percent of it--be spent on American- made products and equipment. Let's take the Superstorm Sandy situation. We know that, for example, Amtrak is receiving, I think, a little over $150 million to repair its tracks that were damaged by Superstorm Sandy. Those are jobs--men and women will be working--but it's also steel, it's electrical wires, it's consultants, and it will undoubtedly be various kinds of electrical systems that will be used by Amtrak in rebuilding, similarly with regard to the subways in New York. Now, if we were able to write into the Superstorm Sandy legislation that 85 percent of that money that's used on rebuilding the infrastructure came from American-made products--in other words, Buy America--then that would not only put people back to work, but it would stimulate the steel industry, the electrical industry, and certainly the consultants, engineers, and architects. So I'm going to reintroduce that legislation--too late now for Superstorm Sandy, but there will be other legislation. For example, we know that we're going to have to rewrite a new transportation bill in this session. There's a 2-year bill that's now in place. It will expire at the end of the 213th Congress, so we're going to need to redo that. We should write into that transportation legislation--where we will spend $50 billion, $60 billion a year to build transportation systems--a clause like my bill that says that's taxpayer money; let's use that taxpayer money to buy American-made equipment and supplies, putting Americans back to work and using that to rebuild the American manufacturing sector along the lines that you describe, not with yesterday's technology, but with advanced manufacturing.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I would like to move in just a moment to the issue of how we can actually help other parts of our economy grow as we build our infrastructure. But before I do I am just thinking about the previous discussion from our Republican colleagues where they talked about the deficit and the deficit and we ought to eliminate government programs. Certainly there are government programs that are neither efficient, effective, or necessary, and, yes, those should be cut. But when you start talking about infrastructure this is something that we really must do. It was said that for an expenditure of some $15 billion New York City could have protected its subway system and the shoreline from the devastation of two major storms, one that occurred a year ago and another one that occurred just 97 days or 3 months ago, Superstorm Sandy. So if we get ahead of these disasters and build the necessary protections, for example in my district if we build those levees, yes, it will cost money. For the Natomas area it's about $1 billion. Very expensive, no doubt about it. But if we do not protect and do not build those levees the devastation will amount to several times that amount of money. That's precisely what happened in Manhattan and in the New York City area. So again, you spend that money up front, yes, you put people to work, yes, there may be an immediate issue of where and how we fund it, and that's a legitimate issue, but fail to do it and then the cost is horrendous. And, yes, if the State, the Federal, the local governments, the individuals, that will all be an expense that they have to endure. And Superstorm Sandy, the bill we saw today, is precisely on that. Now, having said that, let's talk about the broader subject. You mentioned Build American Bonds just a moment ago. The Build American Bonds were part of the stimulus program, now almost 4 years old. That program created a new mechanism to assist local governments in providing the funding to build infrastructure--very, very successful in putting people back to work. We could extend that. In doing so, we will put people back to work. We will build the infrastructures, whether those are highways or bridges or whatever. As we do that, one of our favorite topics that we've talked on this floor many, many times about is this: We can Make It in America. We use our taxpayer money to make and to spend that money on American-made products. So the steel in the bridges, the concrete, the other design elements are American jobs. And as we do that, we rebuild the American manufacturing base. You've talked about this extensively. You go back in history, but go for it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. You're speaking of something that is very close I know to your heart. I've heard you speak on this issue some months ago about some of the historic buildings that date back to the pre-Revolutionary War era in New York. And it's interesting to note that in this Sandy legislation that passed the House today there are numerous reforms, improvements on the way in which the Federal Emergency Management System works, so that the historic resources can be rebuilt and maintained, so that that sense of history, that sense of our past and who we are as Americans is going to be there for future generations. Some of the old rules and regulations made it virtually impossible to do that. There's also in this legislation other reforms that allow the projects and homes and businesses to be rebuilt in a way that protects them from the future storms and the increased storms that you so aptly described. Let me just take this home to my district. I represent the Central Valley of California, the great Sacramento Valley, 200 miles of it, literally from the beginning of San Francisco Bay 200 miles up the Sacramento River. And probably, I haven't been able to count all the levees in my district, but I probably have well over 1,500 miles of levees that protect large cities, medium size cities, farms and other critical assets and infrastructure in the State of California. For example, the intercontinental rail system both north and south, intercontinental highway systems, universities, international airports. These critical assets are at risk of flooding. The Army Corps of Engineers is taking a look at the levees in one part of my district. The Natomas Basin, which is part of the city of Sacramento, judges those levees to have a 1 in 30 chance of failure, so that over a 30-year period of time it's anticipated there will be a catastrophic failure of those levees. One hundred thousand lives just in that part of Sacramento at immediate risk because those floodwaters--should those levees fail, it would be a repeat of what happened in New Orleans, only the water is deeper and the floodwaters would rush in, at least as fast, if not faster. A monumental disaster, international airport gone, highways gone and on and on. We need to get ahead of that. We need to build that infrastructure, those levees, to protect those assets. A penny of prevention, a pound of savings. So these are the kind of things that we can do. And there are ways we can do this. Yes, it may run up the immediate deficit. But once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. Further up in my district, again along the Sacramento and the Feather Rivers, I have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. It has failed four times in the last 60 years. Lives have been lost. One of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. We need to rebuild that. The Federal Government's role in the construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this Nation. And it is Congress' task to allocate the money, to decide the projects that are going to be built. But unfortunately, we've tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our Republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. We're not talking about willy-nilly unnecessary projects; we're talking about saving lives and property. This is how we should be acting. Rebuilding after a storm to a higher standard, building before the storm to protect our people, the people that we represent. These are critical issues, these are infrastructure projects, and we need to get on top of this and push these projects forward. Yes, it will cost money, but not nearly as much as the cost of a levee failure because we failed to act in time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. The bill now is out of this House. It's over in the Senate. We expect the Senate to pass it probably tomorrow or the next day, certainly before the inaugural on Monday, and then the President will undoubtedly sign it shortly thereafter, bringing that kind of relief. You mentioned the job issue, and people need to go to work. When we have these natural disasters, and we come forward with the kind of support that we have seen today, and will soon be available for New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and the surrounding areas, people go back to work. Those people that have received immediate FEMA support for housing, for clothing, for food, that money's immediately spent into the economy. On the infrastructure side, it's crucial. When the subways of Lower Manhattan flooded, the world's financial institutions took a whack because it was shut down for several days. People couldn't get to work, and so the entire world's economy slowed down, costing billions of dollars beyond just the damage. Now, part of the infrastructure, part of the bill that was passed today, the infrastructure improvements are to harden, to prepare Manhattan and the surrounding areas, the beach communities and others, for the next storm, to put up the seawalls. Now, what does that mean? Well, it means that the ounce of prevention and the pound of cure have taken place, but it also means people are going to go to work. Let me refer to this chart here. This is from Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, and the former economic adviser to John McCain. His analysis, and this is generally agreed to by most economists, is that for every dollar invested in infrastructure, you get $1.57 back into the American economy. So you're not just putting a dollar in. You're getting the American economy going. You're putting people to work. Those people will then be able to pay taxes, buy food, support their families, and build for tomorrow's disaster, putting in place the infrastructure that is hardened, that is protected, eliminating the potential, in this specific case, of flooding of the subway systems in New York City. I know that you talked about doing this in your area for the storm. You may want to pick that back up, and then I want to come back and talk about my own district in California.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good, it is very, very good that the new 113th Congress acted today to reach out in sympathy, compassion, and with real support to the people who were so severely impacted by Superstorm Sandy. One of our colleagues, just a moment ago, spoke about this Nation being at a crossroad. And indeed, we cross paths many, many times and there are many different crossroads. The people of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and other parts of this great Nation here on the east coast came to a crossroads. That crossroads was 97 days ago when Superstorm Sandy came ashore and whacked and destroyed, pummeled and, indeed, killed Americans. Today, the House of Representatives, not unanimously, unfortunately, but by a strong majority of Democrats and some Republicans, stood tall and said we are one Nation. We're one Nation, and when one of us is harmed, we'll stand with that person. When one State is harmed, we'll stand with that State, and we will come together, just as my colleague said a moment ago, we will come together to provide what is needed to rebuild, to sustain, to provide, so that they who have been harmed can carry on. There's a lesson here for all of us, and tonight my Democratic colleagues and I will talk about the lesson that Superstorm Sandy brought to this Nation. Certainly one of those lessons has been fulfilled today. As a great Nation, we will provide what is needed for the rebuilding, for the immediate needs, even though it is 97 days late. We will provide because we are a compassionate Nation. But there's also another lesson here, and that lesson is for this entire Nation to get ahead of the next disaster. It will come. It'll be another storm up the east coast or into the gulf. It'll be an earthquake in my State of California or a flood or a fire. But there will be yet another natural disaster of one sort or another, perhaps man-made, perhaps Mother Nature. What we must do as a Nation is to get ahead of that, to prepare ourselves not only with emergency responses, but more and just as important, to prepare the infrastructure to protect the lives and the property of the citizens of this Nation. That's the second lesson of Superstorm Sandy. Build the infrastructure to prepare for the next flood, the next hurricane, the next onslaught of Mother Nature. We can do it. And in so doing, we not only reduce the cost of that next storm, that next flood, but we also save the lives of Americans, and we put people to work right now. This Nation is not yet fully recovered from the recession of 2008. This Nation has not yet fully brought Americans back to work, and we can do so taking the lesson of this day's action here on the floor of the House of Representatives where we, at least most of us, voted to build for the future, voted to put in place those infrastructure improvements, not for yesterday, not to rebuild just what was there that was destroyed, but, rather, to build for the future onslaught of a storm coming into New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, or other parts of this Nation. To be prepared. The Boy Scout motto: Be prepared. Benjamin Franklin: An ounce of prevention is worth a dollar of cure. These are truisms that have been with us forever, and today we want to talk about infrastructure investment, the kind of things that were done here on the floor, some $33 billion going not only for immediate relief, but to build the infrastructure necessary to protect and prepare for the next storm. Joining me today in this discussion, at least at the outset, is my colleague from New York, Paul Tonko. We often meet here on the floor. We sometimes call this the East Coast/West Coast show. I'm from California. Representative Tonko is from New York. And you were there, not only for this storm, but for the previous storm, and that was less than 18 months ago. Let's talk about these things, Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. I think we are finished for this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. Once again, we have a challenge ahead of us. Mr. Higgins, I know that this has been one of your principal issues here in the House of Representatives. If you would like to wrap up on this piece of our discussion tonight, on the infrastructure piece, then we will take the final 10 to 15 minutes and pick back up to the Medicare and Social Security issues that are also very much part of what is on the table today as we address the fiscal cliff, growing the economy, and jobs.

Mr. GARAMENDI. You're absolutely correct that if we're to deal with the deficit, we have to put Americans back to work. The infrastructure has, over the years, been a principal way in which you employ Americans--we did this with the stimulus bill and it had great effect-- but it also builds the foundation for tomorrow's economic growth and protects people along the way. It protects property; it protects valuable assets that we have in our Nation. The President has been very clear about this for more than 15 months now. Fifteen months ago he put before Congress the American Jobs Act, one element of which was the infrastructure. He wanted an additional $50 billion over and above the $53 billion that you described earlier, Mr. Higgins, as the ongoing infrastructure. Our colleague here, we talked earlier--I think Mr. Higgins you raised this issue, and Mr. Tonko did also--Thursday, two days from now, we're going to take up the National Defense Authorization Act, which is the plan for our national security, the military. In that piece of legislation there is a minimum of $88 billion to be spent between October 2012 and September 30 of 2013 on the Afghanistan war, $88 billion. That's a lot of money. All that we're talking about in this cut discussion that's under way between the President and Mr. Boehner is somewhere, $400 billion, maybe $500 billion; $88 billion in Afghanistan next year. A good portion of that is for infrastructure in Afghanistan, as was discussed earlier today. We know how to make decisions here. Part of those decisions that are on the table today are very serious cuts to the Medicare program. I discussed earlier the Medicare eligibility age has been proposed by the Speaker of the House on the Republican side to be increased from 65 to 67 years. It will have a disastrous effect on those who have paid into Medicare their entire working lives and expect to be able to have that health care benefit available to them when they become 65. It will not save much money, but it will surely harm thousands upon thousands of Americans. Similarly, suggestions have been made to dramatically alter Social Security. Suggestions that will significantly harm a vast number of Americans--perhaps, I don't know the numbers--probably 20 million Americans who are currently obtaining Social Security benefits but will not see the adjustment for inflation. These are people that are receiving less than $1,500 a month for Social Security. And for many of them, for many of them that is their total source of income. Mr. Altmire, you have been a person that knows the statistics here and knows the numbers. I speak more from my heart rather than the precise numbers, so my colleagues, let's join in this conversation about Social Security. I think the starting point comes from the compassion that we should all possess for seniors, but the facts also need to be understood here. One fact should be clear to all 435 Members in this House, and that is that the deficit that we are facing and all the discussion about the deficit and the fiscal cliff is not a Social Security problem. It is not a Social Security problem. It is a tax revenue issue which we've talked here a little bit about. It is an issue for Medicare, which we can solve without cutting benefits. It's an issue for the military, the war in Iraq, the $88 billion that we're going to spend there in the next 9 months. Those are real issues about the deficit. Social Security does not contribute one nickel, one penny to the deficit. It is a trust fund apart from this deficit issue. It has its own source of revenue, and we ought not be harming seniors while we are giving continuing tax breaks to people that are making lots of money. Let's get this straight: Social Security should not be on the table as we discuss this issue. Now, we know 8 years from now, 7 years, maybe 9 years from now, Social Security has to be adjusted because of the continuing number of people that are coming on. Are we out of time just as I'm getting wound up on Social Security?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, we actually need to do that, but why don't we wrap up the infrastructure here and then I do want to spend a few moments talking about Social Security and perhaps ending back to where we started on Medicare and these programs.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much for bringing that up. It's not only an issue on the east coast; it's an issue in the Midwest, it's an issue in the West, it's an issue all across this Nation. The climate is changing. The storms are more severe and are likely to continue to be even more severe in the future. For me, my district is 200 miles of the Sacramento River. The second most city at risk of flooding in the United States after New Orleans is Sacramento. The Natomas portion of Sacramento and certain portions along the American River in Sacramento are in extraordinarily dangerous territory. We need to rebuild our levees. We need to upgrade our levees. We should not wait until they break and then try to deal with the death, the destruction, and the rebuilding that then occurs, but do exactly what you said, Mr. Higgins, and that is anticipate the next storm. Build ahead of it. Protect ourselves ahead of it. I have some 1,500 to 2,000 miles of flood levees in my district. We need serious infrastructure improvement. Just this last week, Friday, I was in the Yuba City area of Sutter County. Forty miles of levee need to be upgraded and improved. We need action by the Federal Government. The Army Corps of Engineers needs to issue the 408 permit in a big hurry so that we can begin the construction of the improvements of those levees. And that's not unusual across this Nation because many other parts of this Nation, including the rebuilding of New York and New Jersey, need to build higher standards--and not just repair what was damaged, but to build to a higher standard. That takes money. And this is where the Federal Government has a critical role to play. We need to make that money available. In some cases, there are repayment systems. We talked about that with an infrastructure bank. In other cases, there are not, and the local governments, together with the State and Federal Government, come together and build those systems. But the Federal Government has to step forward as the major partner in all of these. And if we do it in a way that uses the money to buy American-made equipment and supplies, we can create even more jobs in America. Part of the Make It America agenda that we have been promoting now for 2 years is just that--you use that money to buy American-made equipment and you rebuild the American manufacturing base at the same time that you build the infrastructure. Mr. Altmire, you stood up with enthusiasm while I was speaking. So what do you have here?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko. Mr. Higgins, I see that you would like to get into this also. I know that you're there. So please pick up this conversation and carry it on.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Why don't you share with us a little bit of what the State of New York needs to do on infrastructure repair and how to prevent it from happening again.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Indeed, we do need to invest in infrastructure and we need to rebuild. I noticed another colleague from the great State of New York has joined us. Often Mr. Tonko and I are here on the floor in what we call the East-West Show. But Mr. Higgins and Mr. Tonko, your State and the State of New Jersey got whacked by a superstorm.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, let's continue this discussion of infrastructure. The last time we took this up 3 weeks ago, we had talked about an infrastructure bank, a proposal that's been presented to the House of Representatives now for at least 15 years. I believe our colleague from Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, has introduced that bill year after year. You said that the Federal Government can borrow money, 10-year notes, even 15-year notes somewhere around a percent and a half, maybe towards 2 percent. If we were to borrow that, put it into an infrastructure bank, and then loan money to infrastructure projects that have a cash flow, sanitation facility, water facility, toll bridges, and numerous other kinds of infrastructure which are desperately needed, we could have a financing system that, over time, would actually make money for the Federal Government, could borrow at 1\1/2\ percent, loan at 1\3/4\ percent, have a margin there. The money would flow back in. You'd get that revolving. The President has actually proposed this in his American Jobs Act. He's picked this up during his debate, the fiscal cliff negotiations, put it back on the table. We ought to be doing that. In doing so, we will create tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of American jobs, American jobs. And if we couple that with Buy American, so that the equipment, the steel, the concrete, the other ingredients used in these infrastructure projects were American-made, using our tax money for American-made equipment, we would even see a resurgence of the manufacturing base in America. This is a no-brainer. This is something we ought to have done years ago. But here, as we approach this fiscal cliff, we ought to take up the President's challenge, move forward with an infrastructure bank and create jobs in America and build the foundation for economic growth. Mr. Altmire, why don't you pick this piece up and carry it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The eulogy that was just given is most appropriate. There are men and women of extraordinary talent that have served in this Capitol, and certainly, Senator Inouye fits that. There is also a fiscal cliff out there, and I know the Senator was working diligently on that before his last days. Here, too, in the House of Representatives, we also should be working diligently on that. It seems as though we are not making as much progress as we should. We have about 10 days now. Actually, I guess it's 12, 13 days. We go to January 3, so it's 16 days before the fiscal cliff actually occurs. Between now and then, we have a great challenge. We have the well-being of this Nation, the world's strongest and, in many, many ways, the world's greatest Nation. It doesn't really hang in the balance, but its well-being in the years ahead will be largely determined by how well we address this challenge of the fiscal cliff. It's the deficit. Will we be able to put in place a solid plan that over the course of, perhaps, a decade addresses the deficit and brings it under control and begins to reduce it? I know we can. We've done it before. We did it in the 1990s when President Clinton made a proposal that would raise taxes and reduce expenditures. It led during that period of time to a surplus, a surplus that was dramatically altered when the George W. Bush administration came in and started two wars and enormous tax cuts simultaneously, and it led to a deficit that was extraordinarily increased as the Great Recession took place in 2008. We need to turn that around. President Obama has made a very solid set of proposals during the course of the campaign, one in which taxes for a couple would go up over $250,000 of adjusted gross income; all of their income below that would continue to have the tax reduction. He also made very substantial proposals to reduce expenditures. Those are now being negotiated in a back-and-forth between Speaker Boehner and the President. He also made some very important proposals to grow the economy--significant investments in infrastructure, significant investments in research, in education, in the fundamental investments that create ongoing growth in the economy. I'm not sure how this is going to work out, but here on the Democratic side of the aisle we have some principles that we want to lay down, and tonight we will discuss those principles. We've done this before--we've talked about Medicare, we've talked about Social Security, we've talked about laying down the investments. Joining me tonight will be my colleagues from around this Nation. I want to start with Jason Altmire, who has talked to these issues many times and who wants to present to us our view as Democrats. Jason, if you will take the floor and speak to these issues.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Before I get into the issues that I want to talk about, I want to also reach out to Jay. Since nobody from this side of the aisle has yet spoken, I'd like to do so. About 3 years ago, I started doing Special Order hours, and always Jay would come up to me during the floor session and ask me what we had planned and share with me the Republican plans for the Special Order hour. And we'd work it out: Will you take the full hour, yes or no? Probably 40 minutes, maybe less. That was so we would have a smooth transition from the Republican Special Order hour or the other way around, Democrat to Republican. It has been a great pleasure to work with you, Jay. You do a great job here. I could echo everything that's been said, but I really don't know all of the intricacies on your side. I do know that when they involve our side of the aisle, you're there to make it a smooth transition and to make it work. It was a pleasure working with you, and I'll miss you along with, I'm sure, every other Member of this House. So Godspeed and best wishes to you in your retirement. Thank you very much, Jay. Many things have happened over the last several days. We've got the fiscal cliff, but we've also had not only the retirement of very special people in the lives of the House of Representatives and the Senate, but also the recent death of Senator Inouye, which marks the passage of the generation that fought in World War II. I've been asked, and I'll gladly yield whatever time our colleague, Colleen Hanabusa of Hawaii, would like to take in memory of an extraordinary Senator. I had the pleasure of working with him in the mid-90s when I was the Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. We were working on the Native Hawaiian lands issues. He was a remarkable individual, one that not only understood the intricacies of that very complex situation, but also had enormous passion for the Native Hawaiians. So tonight I yield whatever time she might want to take to Colleen Hanabusa, our colleague from the great State of Hawaii. In Memory of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of tonight's Special Order.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Altmire, thank you very much for moving this issue along. I've used this placard before when we were discussing the Republican budget that did pass this House that would end Medicare as we know it. That was just a way of doing it with vouchers or with what they call premium support. Either way, Medicare as a guarantee of health care for those people 65 and over would be over. Now, there are other ways that Medicare can be whittled away, weakened to the point where it could simply die of malnutrition. We want to be quite certain that this doesn't happen and that this tombstone never comes to pass. It was 1965 that President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into existence, and we're not going to let it end in 2011 or 2012 or beyond. I recall so vividly an experience as a child, I was probably, I don't know, 10, 12 years old. My father took me to the county hospital, which is where the elderly went to die. There was no Medicare then. It didn't exist. More than half of the seniors were in poverty. There was no health care available to them. No insurance company would insure the elderly. They were expensive. And so there was literally no way that they would be able to get health care except at the county hospital, a ward strung out as far as my eye could see, beds on both sides, the stench unbelievable. The moaning and the crying that was going on unbelievable. In 1965, America took a step to become a compassionate Nation where we would take care of the elderly. And so proposals have been bandied about, the Republican budget basically terminating Medicare or whittling away at it in various ways, most recently to increase the eligibility age from 65 to 67. What is a person to do when they're 65 and cannot get private insurance? And at the same time, they want to do away with the opportunity that exists in the Affordable Care Act for an exchange that could possibly provide insurance, but they want to do away with that. Come on. Come on. This is America where we take care of the elderly and we provide the services. Medicare can be dealt with. We can deal with the inflation in Medicare and in the Affordable Care Act. Many, many things were done to start on that process, for example, keeping seniors healthy, providing for the annual medical checkup; making sure that they had the drug benefits, making sure that the drug benefit part D was available to all seniors; closing the doughnut hole in the Medicare part D drug benefit; electronic medical records; infection rates in hospitals being reduced. I'm going to take just 2 seconds to show you what has happened as a result of the Affordable Care Act and other measures. The inflation rate in Medicare has been dramatically reduced since the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, went into effect. It is down in the 2, 2\1/2\ percent range now and has remained there since ObamaCare went into effect. The changes in ObamaCare extended the viability, the financial viability of Medicare by 8 years, and here's the effect. The inflation rate is now less than the general health care inflation rate, and this has caused a recalculation of the deficit in the years ahead. The deficit in the years ahead was based on an inflation rate up here in the 5 percent range, but when it's down in the 2 percent range, the deficit has been reduced by over $200 billion simply because Medicare is not inflating, growing as fast as anticipated back 2\1/2\ years ago. More can be done without taking away one benefit from seniors. The Federal Government could negotiate drug prices, bringing down the cost. The Federal Government could institute better payment mechanisms so there is a continuity of care rather than a one-off episodic care for seniors. In so doing, seniors stay healthier longer and the inflation rate and the cost are reduced. There are many other things. But let me be very clear about this. If there is an effort to throw seniors who become 65 off of Medicare by denying them the opportunity, we will see an increase in the total cost of health care in the United States, because those seniors will not be able to get quality medical care. They will become sick and they will wind up somewhere in the system, perhaps in an emergency room, somewhere in the hospital, and the total cost of the system will go up. But if you keep seniors on Medicare, when they become 65, they will have access to quality care, better health care. And with the changes that were in the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, they will be healthier longer and the cost of care will be reduced for all of us in the health care system. Now, I suspect we'll come back to Medicare before this night is done, but we ought to talk about jobs for awhile. We were on this floor a few weeks ago, and we spent some time talking about infrastructure, about jobs, and our colleague from the State of New York, that is the western side of New York, is joining us tonight to pick up that issue once again.

Mr. GARAMENDI

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

Mr. GARAMENDI. Exactly so. All we need to do is pass that. The other alternative, which has been proposed, is to keep the taxes low for the superwealthy and to pay for that out of the pockets of seniors. We're not going there, and we shouldn't. Jan, thank you for sharing this evening with us. This is an important issue.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Our colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee, before she left, she brought this issue up. In the House today is the tax program that would continue the tax reductions for the middle class.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Indeed, it is. It has passed the House of Representatives twice--not once but twice. So this is not just some idea floating in the ethereal. This is a real proposal that is sitting in the Senate. Fortunately, it's going nowhere there, but these kinds of programs are there. The other program--and we've talked around this issue--is just a flat-out assault on the benefits. We're going to cut out drugs. We're going to cut out one or another of the benefits that are in Medicare. The package of benefits in Medicare is designed to provide a continuity of care so that something that is common is going to get covered-- hospitalization, a doctor's care, and now, with the Affordable Care Act, annual visits to the doctor. It's very, very important. Let me be clear that, as Democrats, we understand the necessity of reducing the cost of Medicare. We understand that. In fact, we have done it. The Democrats have done it. We have taken action to reduce the cost of Medicare and to simultaneously maintain the benefits and improve the benefits to seniors. That is what we have done, and we'll continue to do it. Things I talked about at the very outset are very real. We can take additional steps. We can do more. The President has proposed it, and the Democrats stand ready today to take up those issues and pass them out of the House, give them to the Senate and say we can do more to reduce the cost of Medicare and simultaneously maintain quality care for seniors and the benefits that they have spent their lifetime paying for, paying for those benefits. We can do it. We've done it.

Mr. GARAMENDI. They don't want those people because they get sick and they're expensive. They want Medicare, but the voucher program is the privatization of Medicare. It is nothing other than that. It's the termination of this guarantee, and seniors have to go out and negotiate on their own for a health insurance policy. Good luck, Mom. You're 92 years old. Good luck in getting a health insurance policy from any private health insurance company. It won't happen. It won't happen. So, with those proposals, they are wrongheaded; they are cruel; they are expensive to the individual; and they ultimately will lead to a system in which health insurance will not be available to seniors. That's a proposal that has been given life and that has actually passed the House of Representatives.

Mr. GARAMENDI. The word ``entitlement'' is really misused for both Social Security and Medicare. Basically, the word means that, when you reach a certain age, the program is available to you. It's not a freebie. Men and women in America who work, even those who are 65 and over, continue to pay what amounts to a health care premium. It's the payroll tax. They're paying that from the first paycheck they get until the last one that they receive. Then when they're no longer working, as you so correctly stated, Medicare does not cover the total cost, so they're going to continue to pay. They're probably going to be paying for a supplemental insurance program, and they're certainly going to be paying out-of-pocket and the like. There are a couple of other things that have been proposed, and I want to just cover those because they're very important. It has been proposed that the cost of the Medicare system can be reduced by giving every senior a voucher or--a different word but exactly the same thing--premium support, which basically says that the Medicare system, as we have known it for nearly 50 years, is terminated--gone--and that seniors who are 65--or 67 if they get their way--would be thrown into the private health insurance market. I cannot imagine a worse situation for a senior. The private health insurance market is not interested in caring for seniors.