John Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, you're absolutely correct about that. The proposal to cut Medicare benefits is a nonstarter. There are things that can be done in Medicare to reduce the cost, and much has already been done. I would like to ask my colleague from the great State of Michigan to join us. Mr. Curson is a new Member of Congress, came in a special election about a month ago. Welcome. We are delighted to have you join us.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker and colleagues and the general public, there has been a lot of discussion in the last several days about what to do with the fiscal cliff. Is it a cliff? Is it not a cliff? Is it a slope? Is it the end of America as we know it, or whatever. But in this debate, there are a few things that are absolutely critical--tax policy, the President has laid it out very, very clearly, as did the election. We're going to do tax reform, yes. And it's time for those at the upper end of this wealthy country to pay their fair share. So the President has made it very clear: we're going to raise the rates on those making over $250,000 a year. And by the way, we ought to be very clear understanding what that means. That means 100 percent of Americans get a tax break on the first $250,000 of income. Over that, yes, they'll pay a higher rate, marginal rate, for that over the top. Hey, but what I really want to talk about today with my colleagues who will be joining me in the next few minutes is another part of this debate, and that is on the reductions in Federal expenditures. What's the best way to do it? How are we going to reduce Federal expenditures? There are those that say take on the entitlements. Make the seniors pay more. End Medicare as we know it. Turn it into a voucher program. Or maybe turn it into a premium support program which, as a former insurance commissioner, I know exactly what that means. That means if you're over 65, hey, you're going to get to go buy insurance from the rapacious health insurance companies. Good luck. Premium support, just another way to end Medicare as we know it. Voucher programs, another way to end Medicare as we know it. In the last election, this was a central part of the debate here in America. And it was clear: no way, no how are we going that way. There are others who proposed, well, why don't we just raise the age to 67? Interesting, very interesting proposal. Well, it will save Medicare a little bit of money, but what does it do to those people who are 65 to 67 years of age? It denies them the opportunity to get affordable health insurance in the Medicare program and simply throws those people off to the wolves, again, to the rapacious health insurance companies. And by the way, those are exactly the people that the health insurance companies don't want. They're the people who have higher expenditures. They're the ones who are beginning to get health issues, so the health insurance companies don't want them. How are they going to get insurance? They're going to get insurance at a very high cost, if at all. And, oh, by the way, there are those that want to do away with the Affordable Health Care Act. In the Affordable Health Care Act, there's this thing called the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Patients' Bill of Rights guarantees that insurance companies cannot deny you based upon a preexisting condition. However, they can charge differential rates based upon age. So that notion of somehow saving Medicare by keeping people from getting Medicare is the back way to go, and it is a nonstarter, at least with me and I think many of my colleagues. There are things that can be done in Medicare, and we're going to talk about those things that we can do here with our colleagues today. We also want to pick up the issue of Social Security. Let's be very clear: the deficit situation faced by the United States is not a Social Security problem. It is not a Social Security problem. Social Security is stand-alone. It is not part of the American deficit. It's an issue that over the years has come back before the American public. The Congresses in the past have dealt with it, extended the viability of Social Security for years and years, and this Congress does not need to deal with this problem this year or even next year in the 113th Congress. Down the road it must be dealt with--and there are numerous ways it can be--but to bring Social Security into the deficit debate is only to cloud this debate and to make it far more difficult for us to find a solution. Now, my Democratic colleagues and I and the President have made it very clear we understand the necessity of solving this problem and we're willing to compromise. The President has put on the table a very complete, detailed program about how we can deal with the deficit both in the short term and in the years ahead. And we need to proceed with that. Unfortunately, it was just simply dismissed and a new--well, not a new--actually a rebaked, redone, rehashed proposal was put on the table by our Republican colleagues yesterday, one that really doesn't move us toward a compromise. We need to get there. We need to get a compromise under way. So let's see if we can figure out how to do it. I see several of my colleagues here. I'm not sure which one was first up, but it looks like it might be Florida.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Curson, thank you so very much for your thoughtful discussion of the age issue--it's a profoundly important one--and also bringing up the issue of what is the cost of Medicare administration compared to the private health insurance companies. You're quite correct. Medicare is a very efficiently run program, very efficient in collecting the money and paying the bills, far more than you would ever find in the private health insurance sector, perhaps by a factor of 4-- 3, 4, maybe even 5 in some cases. Also, Medicare has had an extraordinary run of keeping the costs down. I'd like now to call upon Mr. Joe Courtney of Rhode Island-- Connecticut. I've made two mistakes today about my colleagues' locale. Joe, it's yours.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko, thank you very much. Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Higgins, thank you very much. As I was listening to the three of you and thinking my own thoughts, I'm excited. I'm excited for the prospect of America. I can see the opportunities that are there. I can see the policies coming together. And each of the three of you described specific policies that we could put in place. I don't know if we can get 27 million jobs from infrastructure. But I do know that we can get millions of jobs from an infrastructure program and, in so doing, lay the foundation for safety, from floods, fires, from other catastrophes that could occur. I know that in doing so, we can rebuild our manufacturing sector by using American-made products in that infrastructure program. I know that we can provide the jobs that Americans desperately want today--not just cheap jobs but real middle class jobs, as all three of you have described. I am excited. I am excited about the prospect of building America, coming home from the wars and building America, as happened when my father came back from World War II. America went after building. Ms. Kaptur, you talked about the St. Lawrence Seaway. You talked about the interstate highway, that system that President Eisenhower talked about. We are on the cusp of a new building in America. We have the wherewithal. We can finance it with really cheap money now. And we can use these projects to repay that money. It's a very exciting time. And it's our responsibility, as Representatives of the 300-plus million Americans, to enunciate that vision, to put in place those programs. And when we do, we'll make it in America. And Americans will make it. Thank you so very, very much for joining us. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Ms. Kaptur.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Earlier today I was asked by a reporter from San Francisco about the effect of sequestration and the austerity budget proposals on research in that area. The San Francisco Bay area is one of the great research centers in the world, with the University of California, the laboratory at Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore, Stanford and other institutions in the area. The austerity program that is being proposed will devastate the research. Years ago--actually, in the mid-eighties, when I was in the California Legislature, we were talking about how to keep the California economy going, and I developed a plan, a program. There were five pieces to it. We've talked about all of those five today. Every one of those five were critical investments that the economy, the society would make. The first was the best education system in the world. Now, America has an enormous challenge here and we're not measuring up as we should, and that should be a discussion we should have here on the floor perhaps at another day. The second was the best research. The austerity budget that's out there, the sequestration and other proposals that have been put forward, slash the research budgets of the United States in health care, in energy, in transportation, in manufacturing, in those areas and in those areas that create opportunity. The third is manufacturing, making things that come from that research and enhancing the current manufacturing technologies using, as you suggested a moment ago, Mr. Tonko, the advanced manufacturing technologies which come from research, and the engineering that goes with it that Ms. Kaptur discussed a few moments ago. The fourth was infrastructure. You have to have the foundation for economic growth. Mr. Higgins brought to our attention the potential for 26-27 million jobs within the next 5 years by really going full on into building the American infrastructure, repairing what we have and building for the next generations. The fifth was change. You have to accept change. That means that we have to learn from past experiences here in Congress. Mr. Higgins very correctly pointed out the economic history when a recession was about to recede because of government policies but austerity was implanted and a new recession commenced. We ought to take cognizance of that. So we have to change and grow and learn. Those are the five things I often talk about. Let's carry on this discussion. We have about another 10 minutes. And maybe if each one of us takes 2\1/2\ or so minutes, we can wrap up in time. I think I started with Mr. Higgins and then Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Tonko, and then I will say good night to all. Mr. Higgins.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. As you were talking so enthusiastically, I was thinking of some of Carl Sandburg's incredible poetry on the power of America and all that was done there. Mr. Higgins, you brought this to how we can finance our infrastructure, how we can Make It in America, create jobs. Why don't you carry on with that discussion--or take that anywhere that you would like to.

Mr. GARAMENDI. There's a critical moment now. Right now. That moment is seen in the deliberations that are going on here in this Hall, in the Capitol, about the fiscal cliff, about the deficit. And there are those who would suggest that the only way to deal with it is with an austerity program, reduce government expenditures at every level. There's some evidence cited by Mr. Higgins earlier that there's another way of dealing with this, and that is to put people to work, to use the power of government to put people to work, even if that means borrowing money at 1 percent. Putting it into an infrastructure bank to finance projects that have a cash flow, such as your sanitation facility in Toledo, Ohio, or a toll road or the St. Lawrence Seaway, all of which have a cash flow. You could maybe charge a percent and a half. You borrow at 1 percent, you charge a percent and a half, and we build. We put people to work. Ms. Kaptur, why don't you pick this up, and then Mr. Higgins, and we'll carry on our conversation

Mr. GARAMENDI. You said earlier that the American Society of Engineers--I think that was the name--said that we have a D rating for infrastructure, and that we need over $2 trillion. I don't know anybody in my district, where we may have a serious flood in the next 3 days, that says the infrastructure is adequate. They're looking at those levees, and they're watching the water rise, and they're going, this isn't sufficient to protect us. So in a very real sense of just safety, infrastructure is needed. But also, it's needed for employment. You correctly raised the issue of the veterans coming back, $2 trillion--there's no doubt about the need. America knows there's a need. As the four of us have discussed here, there is a need, even a crying need, and a human safety need right now, not tomorrow, not 10 years from now, but immediately. The question is: How do we go about making that happen? And here 435 of us and 100 Senators on the other side of this building have the ability to answer the crying need of Americans to build our infrastructure, to give us the jobs to provide the foundation for economic growth, and to protect us. We have that power. Let's continue our discussion. Mr. Tonko.

Mr. GARAMENDI. How correct you are to look back to those heroes of the past that laid down the infrastructure. You can actually go back a little bit further. George Washington, in his first year as President of the United States, instructed Alexander Hamilton to develop an industrial policy. One part of that industrial policy was the development of the infrastructure for America's commerce. And it was canals and it was ports and it was roads. Mr. Higgins, so, how are we going to make this happen? You've got $1.2 trillion you want to put out there.

Mr. GARAMENDI. I thought he was associated with Ohio as much as he is with New York. Isn't he on the border out there somewhere?

Mr. GARAMENDI. It is all about jobs. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko. Your personal experience in the New York Legislature and in your own community brings this issue into focus here on the floor of this House. As we build this infrastructure, if we add one additional element to the creation of the infrastructure, something that, again, we've talked about here many times, and that is that we use our money, our taxpayer money, whether it's borrowed or directly paid, that we use that money to buy American-made equipment, so that the steel that goes into the bridges is American-made, the cement made in America, manufactured in America, that we use that American money on American-made equipment. In other words, make it in America, so we not only are doing the infrastructure and the jobs that come with it, but we also use that to revitalize our manufacturing sector. This is a very powerful way in which we can more rapidly expand the American economy. I just happen to have two bills that would do that, one for the clean energy industry. If we're going to use our taxpayer money to subsidize the clean energy industry, wonderful. We need to do that for all kinds of reasons, but buy American-made clean energy products, whether it's a solar system or a wind turbine. And similarly, with regard to transportation, the trains, the buses, the steel, let's buy that in America, American manufacturing. I noticed a lovely lady joining us from the State of Ohio. It would be Marcy Kaptur. You've talked about these issues many times. Thank you very much for joining us this evening.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Well, we saw what collapse can do with the Minnesota bridge and the loss of life. We saw what inadequate infrastructure protecting New Jersey and New York can do with extraordinary loss of public investment as well as private investment--and lives. Joining us for this discussion on jobs and creating jobs is part of what we like to call the east coast-west coast team. Congressman Paul Tonko, you and I are often here on the floor to talk about how we can grow the American economy in a bipartisan way. This infrastructure notion that Mr. Higgins has brought to us I think has considerable merit and fits, I think, very easily with what President Obama has recommended in his American Jobs Act, which was an immediate $50 billion enhancement of the $60 billion that we would otherwise spend, bringing the total to over $100 billion in the coming year. Again, enormous infrastructure. Mr. Tonko, I know you are up on this issue. We have spent time talking about it in the past. Why don't you share with us your thoughts.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Higgins, thank you so very, very much for bringing this issue in very stark terms to our attention. You caught my attention earlier when we were talking about this; but here on the floor, this is a $1.2 trillion program that could create 27 million jobs in the next 5 years, and those are economic analyses that have been done by the New America Foundation.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Apparently, a lot of people would agree given your extraordinary career and the work that you've done here in Congress over these many, many years and decades. Part of what you've spent a good deal of your career working on, Mr. Hall, has been the improvement of the American economy. Tonight, I'd like to join a couple of my colleagues on the Democratic side to talk about the economy and to talk specifically about jobs and the things that we can do here in the waning days of this Congress to create some job opportunities. We've got some very heavy lifting here in Congress in the next month and a half. Everybody wants to talk about the fiscal cliff. Some talk about an austerity bomb. Others talk about what needs to be done to lift the debt limit. All of these issues are before us--tax increases or not. Underlying all of that, foundational to all of that, is putting Americans back to work, getting Americans back into their jobs. If we do that, we will clearly increase employment. When you increase employment, you also increase tax revenue to the Federal Government, to State governments, and to local governments. So our principal task, as I see it--and I think I'm joined by many of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican--is to get the American economy going, to put it back in gear, and there are many reasons beyond just employment and the opportunities that families have to make it. One of the critical elements in all of this is to protect Americans. We recently saw superstorm Sandy smash into New Jersey and New York. It had devastating results: loss of life, an incredible loss of property-- both public and private--and a very, very big cleanup bill. Joining me in a little while will be some of our Representatives from the State of New York, and they'll talk about that in detail. But before Sandy ever hit the coast, there was a need here in America to protect Americans from storms and floods. We know what happens when the protection isn't there--devastating results. In the news today, in northern California, there was in the headlines a series of storms coming to northern California--into my district, where my home is. The word is to get ready for serious flooding. I mean, this is very early in the season; although, Californians with any memory at all will know that there are a series of infamous Christmas floods in northern California. Now, this is really a Thanksgiving flood potential, but nonetheless, it's there. I will tell you clearly that the Sacramento region, which is the second most risky region in the Nation for flooding and flood damage, is right at the center of this storm. So that's the city of Sacramento. Perhaps 100,000 or more people are in serious jeopardy. Should a levee break in that region--and those levees are not up to 200-year standards--people would have less than 20 minutes to find high ground, to get out. It's an impossible situation. So we need serious infrastructure improvement--and that's Sacramento. The rest of my new district goes further north into Marysville and Yuba City, along the Sacramento River further north, and along the Feather and Yuba River-- again, communities at high risk. Serious infrastructure needs to be developed. Levees need to be improved, upgraded, enhanced; otherwise, citizens are at risk, just as they were on Staten Island. This is our responsibility. This is not only a local responsibility and a State responsibility--this is a national responsibility. This is when we become a national community, looking out for each other--in providing the basic infrastructure to protect us. We also have infrastructure that is necessary for commerce: our roads, our highways, our Internet systems, our rail transportation systems. All of these infrastructure items are critical to the economic well-being of America in addition to the human and commerce safety of this Nation. We're going to talk about that tonight. Joining me is my colleague from New York. He has been working on this issue for some time. He has a project and a program that he is proposing, one that caught my attention. I've asked him to come and join us. In being from the State of New York, we are talking about something that's very, very real for you. Please tell us what this is all about.

Mr. GARAMENDI. You had a lot of people speaking to your extraordinary career here, and I didn't want to cut it short. Your advice is sound and, hopefully, taken by all of us.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas would like to finish his statement, I would be happy to yield him 5 minutes.

Mr. GARAMENDI. How do we pay for this again?

Mr. GARAMENDI. Now, it does run up the debt; but we are using that money to create infrastructure, a necessary investment for the economy to grow and to protect ourselves.

Mr. GARAMENDI. That's virtually free money.

Mr. GARAMENDI. Now, the borrowing rate for the Federal Government on a 10-year note is a little over 1 percent or hovering around 1 percent now?

Mr. GARAMENDI. The same way we build and own our homes. We borrow the money to build that personal infrastructure, our home.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues here in Congress from both sides of the aisle to call for an end to the war in Afghanistan. After more than a decade of war, with now more than 2,000 lives lost and hundreds of billions of American tax dollars spent, it's time for our troops to come home to their families. I represent the military communities of Travis Air Force Base, and come January I will represent the community of Beale Air Force Base as well. I can tell you from firsthand experience that the men and women who serve in our Nation's military and their families are America's finest. They are not afraid of sacrifice. They joined the armed forces because they love our country and they are willing to give everything to keep our Nation safe, but their sacrifice must be for a reason. If we're going to ask them to risk life and limb on the other side of the world, it must be for a mission that is vital to our Nation's security. We can no longer say that about the mission in Afghanistan. Our brave soldiers are continuing to die in Afghanistan for what is now a war of choice. We sent them to eliminate the terrorists responsible for the terrible 9/11 tragedy, and they did it with remarkable courage and competence. The al Qaeda training camps have long been eliminated; most of al Qaeda's top leaders have been killed or captured; Osama bin Laden is long dead. Terrorism remains a global threat, and we must combat it. But keeping tens of thousands of troops in a country the size of Texas is no way to achieve this objective. Rather, we must continue to use our superb intelligence capabilities and our special operation forces to root out the terrorist networks and destroy their leaderships wherever they may be. When we do bring our troops home, we must ensure that our returning heroes receive the support that is their due when they get back. We must make sure that they have access to housing, medical care, employment, educational opportunities that they deserve, and we must take care of all of our veterans. The war in Afghanistan has lasted 11 long years, and it must not last another. It's time to bring our troops home. And as we do so, we must turn our attention to rebuild America's economy. One way to do this is to focus on enhancing our green energy sector. The American wind energy industry is in jeopardy. The production tax credit will end December 31, 2012. It must be extended or else 30,000 jobs will be lost and 450 manufacturing businesses will close. Two additional measures must also be considered. First, we could apply the master limited partnership and the real estate investment tax programs to the green energy sector and, thereby, bring significant financing opportunities along with the production tax credit.

Mr. GARAMENDI

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, and I thank Mr. Pallone and Ms. Velazquez. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.